Economic Growth

Highlights Money Supply Drivers: About 70% of the unprecedented increase in broad money supply is the result of the Fed’s asset purchase activity. The remaining 30% is due to an uptick in C&I loan growth, almost all of which is from nonfinancial firms tapping existing credit lines, an activity that will taper off in the coming months. Money Supply Impact: We don’t find broad money supply measures (M1 and M2) to be useful indicators of economic growth, inflation or financial asset performance. Bank Bonds: After viewing the results of the Fed’s stress tests, we still think the odds of bank ratings downgrades this year are low. Investors should stay overweight subordinate bank bonds. Feature The COVID-19 recession and associated policy response have led to unprecedented moves in a number of economic indicators. In this week’s report we focus on one such move that is particularly difficult to square with the rest of the economic landscape, at least judging by the large volume of client questions we’ve received on the topic. The move in question: Broad money supply growth (M1 & M2) is faster today than at any time since the mid-1940s (Chart 1). This week, we look at what has driven money growth to such heights and consider what it might mean for bond investors. We also update our call to overweight subordinate bank bonds based on last week’s release of the Fed’s bank stress tests. Chart 1Massive Money Growth! Massive Money Growth! Massive Money Growth! Money Supply Drivers The US economy’s broad money supply is more or less the sum total of all the money sitting in bank deposits at any point in time. More specifically, the M1 measure includes currency in circulation, demand deposits and traveler’s checks. The M2 measure includes all of M1 plus savings accounts, time deposits and retail money market funds. Fed asset purchases and bank lending are the two drivers of money supply growth. There are two ways for these broad money supply measures to grow. First, the Fed can purchase securities from the private market. Second, banks can lend money to the private sector. We consider both of these drivers in turn. The Federal Reserve’s Contribution To Money Growth The Fed influences the money supply by changing the amount of reserves in the banking system. To see how this works, Table 1 shows recent balance sheets for both the Fed and the aggregate US banking system. Table 1The Link Between The Fed’s Balance Sheet And The Aggregate US Banking System The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply The largest line items on the Fed’s balance sheet are the securities it owns (on the asset side) and the reserves it supplies to the banking system (on the liability side). The Treasury Department’s General Account has also become a sizeable liability for the Fed during the past couple of months (see Box). Box 1: The Large Treasury General Account Is Not Stimulus Waiting To Be Deployed The Treasury General Account (TGA), aka the Treasury Department’s cash account at the Fed, has skyrocketed during the past couple of months and now totals $1.6 trillion (Chart 3). This has prompted more than a few client questions, mostly asking whether this large amount of money represents fiscal stimulus that is waiting to be deployed. Chart 3Treasury Holds A Huge Cash Buffer Treasury Holds A Huge Cash Buffer Treasury Holds A Huge Cash Buffer It does not. Any new fiscal stimulus must be authorized by Congress and with most of the funds from the CARES act having already been paid out, any further fiscal stimulus is contingent upon Congress passing a follow-up bill. So why is the TGA balance so large? The Treasury Department’s job is to finance the federal government’s deficit by issuing bonds. To do this, it must make estimates about what tax revenues and government spending will be in the future. To avoid a situation where it has not issued enough bonds to finance the deficit, it will typically err on the side of caution and issue some extra bonds, holding the proceeds in cash in its account at the Fed. Due to the heightened uncertainty of the current macro environment, it recently decided to target a larger-than-usual cash balance of $800 billion. It even overshot that target during the past couple of months, likely because tax revenues came in higher than expected. Going forward, heightened uncertainty about federal deficit projections will ensure that the Treasury continues to hold an elevated cash balance. However, it will probably try to bring the TGA balance down a bit in the second half of the year, closer to its stated $800 billion target. It will accomplish this by simply issuing fewer T-bills in the second half of the year. This will have the result of increasing the broad money supply through the same mechanism as Fed asset purchases. That is, any drawdown in the TGA increases the amount of reserves supplied on the liability side of the Fed’s balance sheet. When the Fed buys a Treasury security it removes that security from the private market and replaces it with cash in the form of a bank reserve. Those bank reserves are a liability for the Fed, but appear on the asset side of the banking sector’s aggregate balance sheet. Please note that the amount of reserves supplied on the Fed’s balance sheet in Table 1 doesn’t exactly match the amount of reserves shown on the banking sector’s balance sheet. This is only because the numbers were recorded on different days. Turning to the banking sector’s balance sheet, we see that when the amount of reserves increases there are only a few different things that can occur to keep the balance sheet in balance. Banks can accommodate the increase in reserves by reducing the amount of loans or securities they hold. Alternatively, banks can raise capital, borrow in private debt markets or show an increase in deposits. When banks accommodate the increase in reserves by raising deposits, the money supply rises. Charts 2A and 2B show the change in the main items on the aggregate banking system balance sheet since the end of February. First, we see that banks did not reduce their other asset holdings in response to the sharp increase in reserves. Neither did they raise capital or debt. Rather, deposit growth accommodated the entire increase in bank reserves. Chart 2AChange In Commercial Bank Assets: February 26 To June 17, 2020 The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply Chart 2BChange In Commercial Bank Liabilities & Capital: February 26 To June 17, 2020 The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply In fact, deposits have grown by about $2 trillion since February compared to reserve growth of $1.4 trillion. Roughly, we can say that Fed asset purchases are responsible for 70% of the growth in the money supply since then. The remaining 30% is attributable to the second driver of the money supply: bank lending. Bank Lending’s Contribution To Money Growth Looking again at Table 1, we see that an increase in bank loans must also lead to an increase in deposits, unless the bank raises debt and/or capital instead. Further, Chart 2A shows that increased bank lending since February accounts for about 30% of the growth in deposits. However, we expect bank loan growth to moderate in the coming months, easing some of the upward pressure on the money supply. This year's increase in bank loan growth has been driven entirely by C&I loans. A look at bank loan growth by category shows that this year’s increase has been driven entirely by Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loans (Chart 4). Growth in other major loan categories – commercial real estate, residential real estate and consumer – has flagged. Further, the increase in C&I lending has been mostly due to firms drawing on existing credit lines. Chart 4A Spike In C&I Lending A Spike In C&I Lending A Spike In C&I Lending The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for the first quarter of 2020 showed a small increase in C&I loan demand. But the survey also asked about potential reasons for the demand uptick (Chart 5). When faced with that question, 95% of respondents reported that “precautionary demand for cash” was a “very important” reason for increased C&I loan demand in Q1. 71% of respondents also pointed to a lack of internally generated funds as a “very important” reason. Importantly, no respondents reported increased C&I loan demand due to investment needs or M&A activity. Chart 5Possible Reasons For Greater C&I Loan Demand In Q1 2020 The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply The distinction is important. Greater investment needs and M&A activity would suggest an improving economic back-drop, and would imply a more sustainable increase in bank lending. In contrast, there is a limit to how much firms can tap existing credit lines for immediate cash needs, and this activity should taper off during the next few months. Bottom Line: About 70% of the unprecedented increase in broad money supply is the result of the Fed’s asset purchase activity. The remaining 30% is due to an uptick in C&I loan growth, almost all of which is from nonfinancial firms tapping existing credit lines, an activity that will taper off in the coming months. The Implications Of Rapid Money Growth According to some theory and popular thought, there are three possible channels through which rapid money growth could impact the economy and financial markets: Fast money growth could lead to stronger economic growth in the future. Fast money growth could lead to rising inflationary pressures. A larger money supply could suggest that there are more funds available to deploy in financial markets. As such, it could lead to price appreciation in risky financial assets. We are inclined to downplay the importance of M1 and M2 as indicators in all three of these areas, for reasons discussed below. The Money Supply’s Impact On Economic Growth In the past, measures of the broad money supply (M1 and M2) did a good job of forecasting economic growth and were tracked closely (and at times targeted) by the Federal Reserve. But as the banking and monetary systems evolved, M1 and M2 became less important. As Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan explained in 1996:1 At different times in our history a varying set of simple indicators seemed successfully to summarize the state of monetary policy and its relationship to the economy. Thus, during the decades of the 1970s and 1980s, trends in money supply, first M1, then M2, were useful guides. […] Unfortunately, money supply trends veered off path several years ago as a useful summary of the overall economy. Chairman Greenspan’s insight is backed up by the empirical data (Chart 6). Real M2 growth was an excellent leading indicator of economic growth until the early 1990s. The relationship has broken down since then, and in fact, the only reliable trend in Real M2 since the 1990s is that it tends to spike during recessions. Chart 6Broad Money Growth Has Been A Poor Indicator For Economic Activity Since The 1990s Broad Money Growth Has Been A Poor Indicator For Economic Activity Since The 1990s Broad Money Growth Has Been A Poor Indicator For Economic Activity Since The 1990s The Conference Board also noticed this trend and removed Real M2 from its Leading Economic Indicator in 2012. According to the Conference Board, Real M2 ceased to function as a leading economic indicator because (i) the Fed began targeting interest rates instead of monetary aggregates and (ii) the creation of interest-bearing checking accounts and money market funds increased safe haven demand for M2. The latter helps explain why money growth has surged during the last three recessions. All in all, broad money growth is now a poor indicator for GDP. The Money Supply’s Impact On Inflation Another popular theory is that money growth is a leading indicator of inflation. This stems from the following identity, aka the Equation of Exchange: MV = PY Where: M = money supply, V = velocity of money, P = price level and Y = real output The identity holds, but is of little practical value, mainly because there is no good way to measure (or model) velocity (V) without relying on money growth and nominal GDP (P*Y). This means that an increase in the money supply doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about inflation, because we have no idea how velocity will respond. In fact, many commentators have observed that the stronger empirical correlation is actually between money velocity (PY/M) and core inflation (Chart 7). When nominal GDP growth exceeds money growth, core inflation tends to rise 18 months later. However, this relationship also holds if we remove money supply from the equation entirely (Chart 7, bottom panel). What we’re actually observing is that core inflation tends to lag economic growth by about 18 months. Chart 7Inflation Lags Economic Growth, Not Broad Money Growth Inflation Lags Economic Growth, Not Broad Money Growth Inflation Lags Economic Growth, Not Broad Money Growth Since we’ve already seen that money supply does a poor job forecasting economic growth, it’s clear that indicators such as M1 and M2 don’t improve our ability to forecast inflation, and in fact probably only confuse the picture. The Money Supply’s Impact On Financial Markets BCA’s US Bond Strategy definitely subscribes to the notion that the stance of monetary policy is one of the most important drivers of financial market performance. If the Fed keeps interest rates low and signals to the market that rates will stay low for a long time, then we would expect investors to chase greater returns in riskier assets, driving up the prices of corporate bonds and equities. That being said, the appropriate way to measure the stance of monetary policy is with interest rates. Money supply measures like M1 and M2 are not helpful guides for risk asset performance. We have already seen that an increase in the money supply can only arise via (i) greater bank lending or (ii) the Fed’s purchase of securities and injection of reserves into the banking system. Both of these things are likely to occur when interest rates are low and monetary policy is accommodative. Low interest rates boost loan demand, and large-scale Fed asset purchases are more likely to occur when interest rates are already at the zero-lower-bound. We would argue that it is, in fact, low interest rates that influence both money growth and financial asset prices. The drivers of money supply growth – bank lending and Fed asset purchases – don’t offer any new information beyond what the interest rate already tells us. On loan growth, both loan demand and risk asset price appreciation are functions of low interest rates. In fact, financial markets will respond more quickly to changes in interest rates than will bank lending: Stock prices are included in the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Indicator, while C&I bank lending is included in the Lagging Economic Indicator.2 This means that, practically, any money supply growth that is driven by bank lending is not useful as an indicator for financial asset prices. What about money growth that is driven by Fed asset purchases? Here, we need to distinguish between the signaling impact of Fed asset purchases and any other potential impact that purchases might have on asset prices. In the first half of 2019, financial markets responded to the Fed's dovish interest rate policy, not to its shrinking balance sheet. Though the data are difficult to parse, our reading is that the only meaningful impact of Fed purchases on financial asset prices is through what the purchase announcements signal to markets about the future path of interest rates. To test this theory, we need to search for periods when the Fed’s signaling about its future interest rate policy diverges from its balance sheet policy. That is, we need to find periods when the balance sheet is shrinking and Fed rate guidance is becoming more dovish, or periods when the balance sheet is growing and rate policy is becoming more hawkish. Unfortunately, we can only identify one such period and that is the first half of 2019 when the Fed was simultaneously shrinking its balance sheet and signaling to markets that interest rate policy was becoming more dovish (Chart 8A). During that period, financial markets responded to the more dovish interest rate policy and not to the shrinking of the Fed’s balance sheet (Chart 8B). Bond yields fell, the dollar weakened and both corporate bonds and equities delivered strong returns. Chart 8ARates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part I Rates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part I Rates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part I Chart 8BRates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part II Rates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part II Rates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part II Bottom Line: We don’t find broad money supply measures (M1 and M2) to be useful indicators of economic growth, inflation or financial asset performance. Subordinate Bank Bonds: Still In The Sweet Spot Chart 9Still In The Sweet Spot Still In The Sweet Spot Still In The Sweet Spot Two months ago we made the case for owning subordinate bank bonds.3 The premise for this call is that subordinate bank bonds are a high-quality cyclical sector, exactly the sweet spot of the investment grade corporate bond market that we want to own in the current environment. We expect that extraordinary Fed support for the market will cause investment grade corporate bond spreads to tighten during the next 6-12 months. In that environment we want to focus on cyclical (or “high beta”) bond sectors, ones that outperform the index during periods of spread tightening. However, we also recognize that the Fed’s emergency lending facilities will not prevent a surge in ratings downgrades. Therefore, the sweet spot we want to own is cyclical bonds that are unlikely to be downgraded. High-quality Baa-rated securities, like subordinate bank bonds, fit the bill nicely. Chart 9 shows that the subordinate bank bond index has a duration-times-spread ratio above 1.0.4 This confirms that the sector will trade cyclically relative to the corporate benchmark. We also see that subordinate bank bonds have outperformed both the overall corporate index and other Baa-rated bonds since the start of the year (Chart 9, panel 2). Further, subordinate bank bonds offer a spread pick-up versus the corporate index in both option-adjusted spread terms (Chart 9, panel 3) and 12-month breakeven spread terms (Chart 9, bottom panel).   What Did We Learn From The Stress Tests? Last week the Fed released the results of its 2020 bank stress tests. Results for individual banks were released for a “severely adverse scenario”, the details of which had been publicly available since February. However, because of concern that the “severely adverse scenario” wasn’t dire enough to capture the potential fallout from the pandemic, the Fed also stress tested three COVID-specific scenarios and released results only for the banking system in aggregate. The three scenarios are: A ‘V’-shaped recovery, where economic growth recovers in Q3 and Q4 of this year after contracting significantly in the first half. A ‘U’-shaped recovery, where the growth pick-up in the second half of 2020 is much milder. A ‘W’-shaped recovery, where economic growth recovers in Q3 but then dips again near the end of the year. Table 2 shows a few key assumptions of the three scenarios along with how the actual economy is tracking. It seems that, absent the re-imposition of lock-down measures, the economy is tracking to be in a slightly better place than in any of the three scenarios. Note that the unemployment rate has already peaked below 15%, lower than assumed by any of the three scenarios. Table 2Three Stress Test Scenarios* The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply Chart 10Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Chart 10 shows the Common Equity Tier 1 Capital Ratio for the aggregate banking sector, and the dashed horizontal lines show how far it would fall in the three different COVID scenarios. The results show that the ‘V’-shaped scenario is manageable for the banking system, but a significant number of banks would run into trouble in the ‘U’ and ‘W’ shaped scenarios.   The good news for bank credit quality is that, based on how the economy is tracking and the prospects for further fiscal stimulus, the worst ‘U’ and ‘W’ shaped scenarios will probably be avoided. Further, the Fed has already suspended share buybacks and capped dividend payouts. It will also re-run the stress tests later this year. Another round of stress tests this year is credit positive, as it will encourage banks to strengthen their capital buffers during the next few months. Bottom Line: After viewing the results of the Fed’s stress tests, we still think the odds of bank ratings downgrades this year are low. Investors should stay overweight subordinate bank bonds. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities The Case Against The Money Supply The Case Against The Money Supply Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/19961205.htm 2 https://www.conference-board.org/data/bci/index.cfm?id=2160 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights We conservatively estimate lost output from shutdowns and social distancing will equal $10 trillion, and we expect the jobs market to be permanently scarred. Inflation, even at 2 percent, is a pipe dream, which leads to three investment conclusions on a 1-year horizon: Overweight US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus German Bunds and French OATs. Any high-quality bond yield that can decline will decline. Overweight CHF/USD. The tightening yield spread will structurally favour the CHF, while the haven status of the CHF should prevent it from underperforming in periods of market stress. Overweight defensive equities (technology and healthcare) versus cyclical equities (banks and energy). This implies underweight European equities versus other markets. Fractal trade: Short Germany versus the UK. The recent outperformance of German equities is technically extended. Feature Chart of the WeekCredit Impulses Are Large, But The Hole In Output Is Much Larger Credit Impulses Are Large, But The Hole In Output Is Much Larger Credit Impulses Are Large, But The Hole In Output Is Much Larger Big numbers befuddle us. Hardly a day passes without someone listing the unprecedented global stimulus unleashed to counter the coronavirus forced shutdowns – the trillions in government spending promises, tax relief, loan guarantees, money supply growth, and central bank asset-purchases. The most optimistic estimates quantify the total stimulus at $15 trillion. This includes $7 trillion of loan guarantees plus increases in central bank balance sheets which do not directly boost demand. So the direct stimulus is closer to $7 trillion.1 Yet the size of the stimulus is meaningless until we quantify the massive hole in economic output that needs to be filled. Assuming no further large-scale shutdowns, we conservatively estimate that the hole will amount to 12 percent of world output, or $10 trillion. A $10 Trillion Hole In Output Last week, the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) helped us to estimate the hole in output, because unusually the ONS calculates UK GDP on a monthly basis. Between February and April, when the UK economy went from fully open to full shutdown, UK GDP collapsed by 25 percent. This despite the UK having an outsized number of jobs suitable for ‘working from home.’ For a more typical economy, we estimate that a full shutdown collapses output by 30 percent (Chart I-2). Chart I-2A Full Shutdown Collapses Output By 30 Percent A Full Shutdown Collapses Output By 30 Percent A Full Shutdown Collapses Output By 30 Percent The next question is: how long does the full shutdown last? Assuming it lasts for three months, output would suffer a hole amounting to 7.5 percent of annual GDP.2  But in practice, the economy will not fully re-open after three months. Social distancing will persist until people feel confident that the pandemic is under control. An effective vaccine against Covid-19 is unlikely to be available for a year. So, even without government policy to enforce social distancing, many people will choose to avoid crowds and congregations for fear of catching the virus. The size of the stimulus is meaningless until we quantify the massive hole in economic output. This means that the sectors that rely on crowds and congregations – leisure and hospitality and retail trade – will be operating at half-capacity, at best. Given that these sectors generate 9 percent of GDP, operating at half-capacity will create an additional hole amounting to 4.5 percent of output. More worryingly, these two sectors employ 21 percent of all workers, so operating at sub-par will leave the jobs market permanently scarred.3 Combining the 7.5 percent existing hole with the 4.5 percent future hole, the full hole in economic output will amount to around 12 percent of annual GDP. As global GDP is worth around $85 trillion, this equates to $10 trillion.  Crucially though, our estimate assumes that a second wave of the pandemic will not force a new cycle of shutdowns. If it does, the hole will become even bigger. Don’t Be Fooled By Money Supply Growth The recent growth in broad money supply seems a big number. Since the start of the year, the outstanding stock of bank loans has increased by around $0.7 trillion in the euro area, and by $1 trillion in both the US and China (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). This has boosted the 6-month credit impulses in all three economies. Indeed, the US 6-month credit impulse recently hit its highest value of all time, and the combined 6-month impulse across all three blocs equals around $2 trillion (Chart of the Week). Chart I-3Don't Be Fooled By Money Supply Growth In The Euro Area And The US... Don't Be Fooled By Money Supply Growth In The Euro Area And The US... Don't Be Fooled By Money Supply Growth In The Euro Area And The US... Chart I-4...And In ##br##China ...And In China ...And In China This 6-month credit impulse quantifies the additional borrowing in the most recent six-month period compared to the previous period. Ordinarily, a $2 trillion impulse would create a huge boost to demand. After all, the private sector does not usually borrow just to hold the cash in a bank. Yet in the coronavirus crisis this is precisely what has happened. While the shutdowns lasted, firms drew on existing bank credit lines to build up emergency cash buffers. Therefore, much of the money growth will not generate new demand. While the shutdowns lasted, firms drew on existing bank credit lines to build up emergency cash buffers.  To the extent that this cash is sitting idly in a firm’s bank account, the monetary velocity will decline. Meaning there will be a much-reduced transmission from credit impulses to spending growth. Furthermore, when the economy re-opens, many firms will relinquish the precautionary credit lines. There is no point holding cash in the bank when there are few investment opportunities. Hence, credit impulses will fall back – as seems to be the case right now in the US. QE: The Great Misunderstanding To repeat, big numbers befuddle us. They must always be put into context. No truer is this than when it comes to central bank asset-purchases. The great misunderstanding is that the act of central banks buying assets, per se, drives up those asset prices. Central banks act as lenders of last resort to solvent but illiquid banks and sovereigns. If there is ample liquidity in these markets – as is the case now – then the primary function of central bank asset-purchases is to set the term-structure of interest rates. In turn, the term-structure of global interest rates establishes the prices of $500 trillion of global assets. The prices of these assets are inextricably inter-connected and inter-dependent4 (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Prices Of $500 Trillion Of Assets Are Inextricably Inter-Connected The Prices Of $500 Trillion Of Assets Are Inextricably Inter-Connected The Prices Of $500 Trillion Of Assets Are Inextricably Inter-Connected The great misunderstanding is that the act of central banks buying assets, per se, drives up those asset prices. Yet central banks set no price target for their asset-purchases. They leave that to the market. Moreover, in the context of the $500 trillion of inter-dependent asset prices, the $10-15 trillion or so of central bank asset-purchases to date constitutes chicken feed (Chart I-6). Hence, the mechanism by which asset-purchases work is through the signal they give to the $500 trillion market on the likely course of interest rate policy. This sets the term-structure of interest rates, which in turn sets the required return on all the $500 trillion of assets (Chart I-7). Chart I-6$10-15 Trillion Of QE Is Chicken Feed... $10-15 Trillion Of QE Is Chicken Feed... $10-15 Trillion Of QE Is Chicken Feed... Chart I-7...Compared To $500 Trillion Of Assets Priced By The Term-Structure Of Interest Rates ...Compared To $500 Trillion Of Assets Priced By The Term-Structure Of Interest Rates ...Compared To $500 Trillion Of Assets Priced By The Term-Structure Of Interest Rates As the ECB’s former Chief Economist, Peter Praet, explains: “There is a signalling channel inherent in asset purchases, which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on policy rates. This credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by the asset purchases, as these asset purchases are a concrete demonstration of our desire (to keep policy rates at the lower bound.)” The credible commitment to keep policy rates near the lower bound for an extended period depresses bond yields towards the lower bound too. But once bond yields have reached their lower bound the effectiveness of central bank asset-purchases becomes exhausted. Three Investment Conclusions The main purpose of this report was to put the $7 trillion of direct stimulus dollars unleashed into the economy into a proper context. With lost output estimated at $10 trillion and the jobs market permanently scarred, inflation – even at 2 percent – is a pipe dream. Moreover, a second wave of the pandemic and a new cycle of shutdowns would inject a further disinflationary impulse. This leads to three investment conclusions on a 1-year horizon: Any high-quality bond yield that can decline – because it is not already near the -1 percent lower bound to yields – will decline. An excellent relative value trade is to overweight US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus German Bunds and French OATs (Chart I-8). Long CHF/USD is a win-win. The tightening yield spread will structurally favour the CHF, while the haven status of the CHF should prevent it from underperforming in periods of market stress. Overweight defensive equities versus cyclical equities, with technology correctly defined as defensive, not cyclical. The performance of cyclicals (banks and energy) versus defensives (technology and healthcare) is now joined at the hip to the bond yield (Chart I-9). This implies underweight European equities versus other markets. Chart I-8Bond Yields That Can Decline Will Decline Bond Yields That Can Decline Will Decline Bond Yields That Can Decline Will Decline Chart I-9The Performance Of Cyclicals Versus Defensives Is Joined At The Hip To The Bond Yield The Performance Of Cyclicals Versus Defensives Is Joined At The Hip To The Bond Yield The Performance Of Cyclicals Versus Defensives Is Joined At The Hip To The Bond Yield Fractal Trading System* The recent outperformance of German equities is technically extended. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go short Germany versus the UK, expressed through the MSCI dollar indexes. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. MSCI: Germany Vs. UK MSCI: Germany Vs. UK In other trades, long euro area personal products versus healthcare achieved its 7 percent profit target at which it was closed. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 65 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Footnotes 1 Source: Reuters estimate. 2 A 30 percent loss in output for a quarter of a year (3 months) amounts to a 30*0.25 = 7.5 percent loss in annual output. 3 Using the weights of leisure and hospitality and retail trade in the US economy as a proxy for the global weights. 4 The $500 trillion of assets comprises: real estate $300 trillion, public and private equity $100 trillion, corporate bonds and EM debt $50 trillion, and high-quality government bonds $50 trillion.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Historically, when global growth picks up, the yen weakens. But this is less likely in an environment where global yields remain anchored at low levels. Meanwhile, there is rising risk that consumption in Japan will remain muted. This will limit any pickup in domestic inflation. A modest rise in real rates will lead to a self-reinforcing upward spiral for the yen. That said, cheap yen valuations will buffet Japanese exports. Go short USD/JPY with an initial target of 100. Feature Chart I-1Higher Volatility, Higher Yen An Update On The Yen An Update On The Yen The powerful bounce in global markets since the March lows is at risk of a bigger technical correction. As we enter the volatile summer months, it may only require a small shift in market sentiment to trigger this reversal. The yen has tended to strengthen when market volatility rises (Chart I-1). Should this happen, it will provide the necessary catalyst for established long yen positions. On the other hand, if risk sentiment stays ebullient, the yen will surely weaken on its crosses but can still strengthen vis-à-vis the dollar. This places short USD/JPY bets in an enviable “heads I win, tails I do not lose too much” position. Growth And Monetary Policy Like most other economies, Japan entered a recession in the first quarter of this year, with GDP contracting at a 2.2% annualized pace. For the private sector, this is the worst growth rate since the Fukushima crisis in 2011. This is particularly significant, since the structural growth rate of the economy has fallen below interest rates. Going back to Japan’s lost decades, where private sector GDP growth averaged well below nominal rates (due to the zero bound), it is particularly imperative that Japan exits this liquidity trap in fast order (Chart I-2). A strong yen back then, on the back of deficient domestic demand, led to a self-fulfilling deflationary spiral. Chart I-2The Story Of Japan In One Chart The Story Of Japan In One Chart The Story Of Japan In One Chart The Bank of Japan began to acknowledge this problem with the end of the Heisei era1  last year. For example, with the BoJ owning almost 50% of outstanding JGBs, the supply side puts a serious limitation on how much more stimulus the BoJ can provide. The yen has become extremely sensitive to shifts in the relative balance sheets between the Federal Reserve and the BoJ. If the BoJ continues to purchase securities at the current pace, then the rate of expansion in its balance sheet will severely lag behind the Fed, and could trigger a knee-jerk rally in the yen (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Yen And QE The Yen And QE The Yen And QE Inflation And The 2% Target The US is a much more closed economy than Japan, and has not been able to maintain a 2% inflation rate since the Global Financial Crisis. This makes the BoJ’s target of 2% a pipe dream for any timeline in the near future. There are three key variables the authorities pay attention to for inflation: Core CPI, the GDP deflator and the output gap. All three indicators point towards deflationary pressures, with the recent slowdown in the global economy exacerbating the trend. In fact, since the financial crisis, prices in Japan have only been able to really rise during a tax hike (Chart I-4). Always forgotten is that the overarching theme for prices in Japan is a rapidly falling (and ageing) population, leading to deficient demand. The overarching theme for prices in Japan is a rapidly falling (and ageing) population, leading to deficient demand. More importantly, almost 50% of the Japanese consumption basket is in tradeable goods, meaning domestic inflation is as much driven by the influence of the BoJ as it is by globalization. Even for domestically-driven prices, an ageing demographic that has a strong preference for falling prices is a powerful conflicting force. For example, over the years, a strong voting lobby has been able to advocate for lower telecom prices, which makes it difficult for the BoJ to re-anchor inflation expectations upward (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Japan CPI At A Glance Japan CPI At A Glance Japan CPI At A Glance Chart I-5Strong Deflationary Pressures In Japan Strong Deflationary Pressures In Japan Strong Deflationary Pressures In Japan Meanwhile, the BoJ understands that it needs domestic banks to expand the credit intermediation process if any inflation is to take hold. Unfortunately, the yield curve control strategy and negative interest rates have been anathema for Japanese net interest margins and share prices (Chart I-6). This puts the BoJ in a precarious balance between trying to stimulate the economy further and biting the hand that will feed a pickup in inflation. Chart I-6Point Of No Return For Japanese Banks? Point Of No Return For Japanese Banks? Point Of No Return For Japanese Banks? Japanese Consumption And Fiscal Policy The consumption tax hike last year delivered a severe punch to aggregate demand in Japan. COVID-19 has dealt a fatal blow. In prior episodes of the tax hikes, it took around three to four quarters for growth to eventually bottom. This suggests that a protracted slowdown in Japanese consumption is a fait accompli (Chart I-7). Foreign and domestic machinery orders are slowing, employment growth has gone from over 2% to free fall and the availability of jobs relative to applicants has reversed a decade-long rising trend. The Abe government has passed an additional 117 trillion yen of fiscal stimulus. With overall fiscal announcements near 40% of GDP, could this fully plug the spending gap? Not quite. The consumption tax hike last year delivered a severe punch to aggregate demand in Japan.  First, as is usually the case with Japanese stimulus announcements, the timeframe is uncertain for when the funds will be deployed. It could be one year or ten years. Chart I-7A V-Shaped Recovery Might Stall A V-Shaped Recovery Might Stall A V-Shaped Recovery Might Stall Chart I-8More Jobs, More Savings More Jobs, More Savings More Jobs, More Savings Second, Japanese consumption has been quite weak for some time. Despite relatively robust economic conditions since the Fukushima disaster, Japanese consumption has trended downward. The reason is that government spending triggered a rise in private savings, because of expectations of higher taxes. In other words, the savings ratio for workers has surged. If consumers were not willing to spend prior to COVID-19 due to Ricardian equivalence,2  they are unlikely to do so with much higher fiscal deficits (Chart I-8). Some of the government’s outlays will certainly go a long way to boosting aggregate demand, since the fiscal multiplier tends to be much larger in a liquidity trap. This will especially be the case for increased social security spending such as child education, construction activity or the move towards promoting cashless transactions (with a tax rebate). However, there are important near-term offsets. In particular, the postponement of the Olympics will continue to be a drag on Japanese construction activity, and the labor (and income) dividend from immigration has practically vanished. The important tourism industry that faced sudden death will only recover slowly. This suggests a much more protracted recovery in many nuggets of Japanese activity. The Yen As A Safe Haven Real interest rates are already higher in Japan, well before any of the above factors began to meaningfully generate a deflationary impulse. As such, the starting point for yen long positions is already favorable (Chart I-9). Real interest rates are already higher in Japan, well before any of the above factors began to meaningfully generate a deflationary impulse. With global growth bottoming, a continued rise in global equity markets is a key risk to our scenario. However, if inflows into Japan accelerate on cheap equity valuations, the propensity of investors to hedge these purchases will be much less today, given how cheap the yen has become. This is especially important since in an era of rising budget deficits, balance of payments dynamics can resurface as the key driver of currencies. This suggests the negative yen/Nikkei correlation will continue to weaken, as has been the case in recent quarters. Chart I-9Real Rates And The Yen Real Rates And The Yen Real Rates And The Yen Chart I-10USD/JPY And DXY Are Positively Correlated USD/JPY And DXY Are Positively Correlated USD/JPY And DXY Are Positively Correlated As a low-beta currency, our contention is that the yen will surely weaken on its crosses, but could strengthen versus the dollar. The yen rises versus the dollar not only during recessions, but during most episodes of broad dollar weakness (Chart I-10). This places short USD/JPY trades in an envious “heads I win, tails I do not lose too much” position.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Heisei era refers to the period of Japanese history corresponding to the reign of Emperor Akihito from 8 January 8th, 1989 until his abdication on April 30th, 2019. 2 Ricardian equivalence suggests in simple terms that public sector dissaving will encourage private sector savings. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been robust: Nonfarm payrolls increased by 2.5 million in May after declining by a record 20.7 million in April. This was better than expectations of an 8 million job loss. The unemployment rate fell from 14.7% to 13.3%. The NFIB business optimism index increased from 90.9 to 94.4 in May. Headline consumer price inflation fell from 0.3% to 0.1% year-on-year in May. Core inflation fell from 1.4% to 1.2%. Initial jobless claims increased by 1542K for the week ended June 5th. The DXY index fell by 1.3% this week. On Wednesday, the Fed left interest rates unchanged, with a signal that rates might not be increased before the end of 2022. The Fed also stated that it will maintain the current pace of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities purchases, at minimum. Report Links: DXY: False Breakdown Or Cyclical Bear Market? - June 5, 2020 Cycles And The US Dollar - May 15, 2020 Capitulation? - April 3, 2020 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been improving: The Sentix investor confidence index improved from -41.8 to -24.8 in June. Employment increased by 0.4% year-on-year in Q1. GDP contracted by 3.1% year-on-year in Q1. The euro appreciated by 1.2% against the US dollar this week. At an online seminar held this week, Isabel Schnabel, member of the executive board of the ECB, noted that "evidence is increasingly pointing towards a protracted impact of the crisis on both demand and supply conditions in the euro area and beyond" and that the current PEPP remains appropriate in de aling with the global recession. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been negative: The coincident index fell from 88.8 to 81.5 in April. The leading economic index also decreased from 85.1 to 76.2. The current account surplus shrank from ¥1971 billion to ¥262.7 billion in April. Annualized GDP fell by 2.2% year-on-year in Q1. Machine tool orders plunged by 52.8% year-on-year in May, following a 48.3% decrease the previous month. The Japanese yen appreciated by 2.6% against the US dollar this week. According to a Bloomberg survey, the majority of economists believe that the BoJ has done enough to cushion the economy, and expect the BoJ to leave current monetary policy unchanged next week. We continue to recommend the yen as a safe-haven hedge, especially given a possible second wave of COVID-19. Report Links: The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been positive: Halifax house prices increased by 2.6% year-on-year in May. Retail sales surged by 7.9% year-on-year in May, up from 5.7% the previous month. GfK consumer confidence was little changed at -36 in May. The British pound rose by 1% against the US dollar this week. On Wednesday, BoE governor Andrew Bailey noted that easing lockdown restrictions has been fueling a recovery in the UK, which could be faster than previously anticipated. Our long GBP/USD and short EUR/GBP positions are 4% and 0.2% in the money, respectively. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mixed: The NAB business confidence index increased from -45 to -20 in May. The business conditions index also ticked up from -34 to -24. The Westpac consumer confidence index increased from 88.1 to 93.7 in June. Home loans declined by 4.8% month-on-month in April, down from a 0.3% increase the previous month. That said, expectations were for a fall of 10%. AUD/USD was flat this week. While the RBA has other options in its policy toolkit to combat the global recession, negative interest rates is still on the table and hasn't been totally ruled out. We remain positive on the Australian dollar both against the US dollar and the New Zealand dollar due to cheap valuations and increasing Chinese stimulus. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been mixed: Manufacturing sales declined by 1.7% quarter-on-quarter in Q1, down from a 2.8% increase the previous quarter. ANZ business confidence increased from -41.8 to -33 in June. The activity outlook index also ticked up from -38.7 to -29.1. The New Zealand dollar appreciated by 0.8% against the US dollar this week. RBNZ's Deputy Governor Geoff Bascand said that house prices in New Zealand could fall by 9-10% or even worse. Besides disrupting exports and imports for a trade-reliant country like New Zealand, the global health crisis is also likely to further reduce immigration to New Zealand, curbing housing demand. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been positive: The unemployment rate ticked up from 13% to 13.7% in May, versus expectations of a rise to 15%, but this was due to a  rise in the participation rate from 59.8% to 61.4%. Average hourly wages increased by 10% year-on-year in May. Net employment increased by 289.6K, up from a 1994K job loss the previous month. Housing starts increased by 193.5K in May, up from 166.5K the previous month.  The Canadian dollar fell by 0.2% against the US dollar this week. The labor market has seen some recovery in May with the gradual easing of COVID-19 restrictions and re-opening of the economy. Employment rebounded and absences from work dropped. Notably, Quebec accounts for nearly 80% of overall employment gains in May. Report Links: More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Switzerland this week: FX reserves increased from CHF 801 billion to CHF 816 billion in May.  The unemployment rate increased from 3.1% to 3.4% in May, lower than the expected 3.7%. The Swiss franc appreciated by 2.3% against the US dollar this week, reflecting a flight back to safety amid concerns over political risks and a second wave of COVID-19. While the euro has been strong recently and EUR/CHF touched 1.09, the franc has lost most of those gains. We are lifting our limit buy on EUR/CHF to 1.055 on expectations we are in a run-of-the-mill correction.  Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been mixed: Manufacturing output shrank by 1.6% month-on-month in April.  PPI fell by 17.5% year-on-year in May. Headline consumer prices increased by 1.3% year-on-year in May, up from 0.8% the previous month. Core inflation also increased from 2.8% to 3% in May. The Norwegian krone fell by 1.5% against the US dollar this week. The recent OPEC meeting over the weekend concluded that all members agreed to the extension to curb oil production. We believe that oil prices will continue to recover, and recommend to stay long the Norwegian krone. Report Links: A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mixed: Household consumption plunged by 10% year-on-year in April. The current account surplus increased from SEK 43.2 billion to SEK 80.6 billion in Q1. Headline consumer prices recovered from a 0.4% year-on-year decline to flat in May. The Swedish krona increased by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. Sweden is benefitting economically from a less stringent Covid-19 agenda. With very cheap valuations, we remain short EUR/SEK and USD/SEK. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Egypt’s balance of payments have deteriorated materially due to both the crash in oil prices and the global pandemic. The country’s foreign funding requirements in 2020 are high and the currency is under depreciation pressures. Unless domestic interest rates are brought considerably lower, the nation’s public debt is on an unsustainable trajectory. Hence, Egypt needs to reduce local interest rates substantially and rapidly. And in so doing, the central bank cannot control or defend the exchange rate. The latter is set to depreciate. Investors should buy Egyptian local currency bonds while hedging their currency exposure. Feature The Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) is depleting its foreign exchange (FX) reserves to defend the currency (Chart I-1). As the CBE’s foreign exchange reserves diminish, so will its ability to support the currency. As such, the Egyptian pound will likely depreciate in the next 6-9 months. Interestingly, despite being a net importer of energy, many of Egypt’s critical macro parameters are positively correlated with oil prices (Chart I-2). Egypt is in fact deeply integrated in the Gulf oil-economy network via trade and capital flows. In other words, Egypt is a veiled play on oil. Chart I-1The CBE Has Been Defending The Currency The CBE Has Been Defending The Currency The CBE Has Been Defending The Currency Chart I-2Egypt: A Veiled Play On Oil Egypt: A Veiled Play On Oil Egypt: A Veiled Play On Oil   Although oil prices have rallied sharply recently, the Emerging Markets Strategy team believes upside is limited and that oil prices will average about $40 over the next three years.1  In addition, local interest rates that are persistently above 10% are disastrous for both Egypt’s domestic demand and public debt sustainability. Egypt’s current account balance strongly correlates with oil prices because of the strong interlinkages that exist between Egypt and the oil-exporting Gulf countries. To preclude a vicious cycle in both the economy and public debt, the CBE should reduce interest rates materially and rapidly. Therefore, higher interest rates cannot be used to defend the exchange rate. Balance Of Payments Strains Egypt’s balance of payments (BoP) dynamics have deteriorated and the probability of a currency devaluation has risen: Current Account: The current account deficit – which stood at $9 billion and 3% of the GDP as of December 2019 – is widening significantly due to the plunge in oil prices this year (Chart I-2, top panel). Egypt’s current account balance strongly correlates with oil prices because of the strong interlinkages that exist between Egypt and the oil-exporting Gulf countries. The latter have been hard hit by the twin shocks of the coronavirus pandemic and the oil crash. First, Egypt’s $27 billion in annual remittances are drying up (Chart I-2, bottom panel). The majority of these transmittals come from Egyptian workers working in Gulf countries. Second, Egypt’s tourism industry – which brings in $13 billion in annual revenues or 4% of GDP – has collapsed due to the pandemic. Tourist arrivals from Middle Eastern countries – which makeup 20% of total tourist arrivals into Egypt – will diminish substantially due to both the pandemic and the negative income shock that the Gulf economies have experienced (Chart I-3). Third, Egyptian exports are in freefall (Chart I-4, top panel). Not only is this due to the freeze in global trade, but also because the country’s exports to the oil-leveraged Arab economies have taken a massive hit. The latter make up 25% of Egypt’s total goods shipments. Chart I-3Egypt: Tourism Is Linked To Oil Prices Egypt: Tourism Is Linked To Oil Prices Egypt: Tourism Is Linked To Oil Prices Chart I-4Exports Revenues Swing With Oil Prices Exports Revenues Swing With Oil Prices Exports Revenues Swing With Oil Prices   Furthermore, since 2019 Egypt has been increasingly exporting natural gas. The collapse in gas prices has probably already wiped out a large of chunk its natural gas export revenues (Chart I-5). Chart 6 exhibits the structure of Egypt’s exports of goods and services. Energy, tourism and transportation constituted 67% of total exports in 2019. Chart I-5Gas Export Revenues Are At Risk Gas Export Revenues Are At Risk Gas Export Revenues Are At Risk Chart I-6Egypt: Structure Of Goods & Services Exports Egypt: A Veiled Oil Play Egypt: A Veiled Oil Play Chart I-7Exports Are Shrinking Amid Resilient Imports Exports Are Shrinking Amid Resilient Imports Exports Are Shrinking Amid Resilient Imports Finally, while export revenues have plunged, imports remain resilient (Chart I-7). Critically, 26% of Egypt’s imports are composed of essential and basic items such as consumer non-durable goods, wheat and maize. Consumption of these staples and goods are less sensitive to business cycle oscillations. Therefore, the nation’s current account deficit has ballooned. A wider current account deficit needs to be funded by foreign inflows. With foreign investors reluctant to provide funds, the CBE has lately been financing BoP by depleting its foreign exchange reserves (Chart I-1, on page 1). Foreign Funding Requirements: Not only is Egypt facing a massively deteriorating current account deficit, but the country also carries large foreign funding debt obligations (FDO). FDOs are the sum of debt expiring in the next 12 months, and interest as well as amortization payments over the next 12 months. FDOs due in 2020 were $24 billion.2 In turn, Egypt’s total foreign funding requirements (FFR) – which is the sum of FDOs and the country’s current account deficit – has risen to $33 billion.3 Importantly, this FFR amount is based on the current account for 2019 and, thereby, does not take Egypt’s deteriorating current account deficit into consideration – as discussed above. Meanwhile, the central bank has net FX reserves of only $8 billion.4 If the monetary authorities continue to fund FFR of $33 billion in 2020 to prevent the pound from depreciating, the CBE will soon run out of its net FX reserves. Overall, Chart I-8 compares Egypt to the rest of the EM universe: with respect to (1) exports-to-FDO on the x-axis and (2) foreign exchange reserves-to-FFR on the y-axis. Based on these two measurements, Egypt is among the most vulnerable EM countries in terms of the balance of payments as it has the lowest FX reserves-to-FFR ratio and a low export-to-FDO ratio as well. Chart I-8Egypt Is One Of The Most Exposed EM Countries To Currency Depreciation Egypt: A Veiled Oil Play Egypt: A Veiled Oil Play Chart I-9FDI Inflows Are Set To Diminish FDI Inflows Are Set To Diminish FDI Inflows Are Set To Diminish Foreign Funding of Private Sector: Egypt will struggle to attract private-sector foreign inflows to meet its large FFR amid this adverse regional economic environment and the likely renewed relapse in oil prices in the months ahead. FDI inflows are set to drop (Chart I-9). The oil & gas sector has been the largest recipient of FDI inflows recently (around 55% in 2019 according to the central bank). The crash in both crude oil and natural gas prices will therefore ensure that FDIs into this sector will dry up. Besides, overall FDI inflows emanating from Gulf countries are poised to shrink substantially.5 Chart I-10The Egyptian Pound Is Once Again Expensive The Egyptian Pound Is Once Again Expensive The Egyptian Pound Is Once Again Expensive Foreign Funding of Government: With FDI inflows diminishing, the Egyptian government has once again been forced to approach the IMF for assistance. The country managed to secure $8 billion in assistance from the IMF ($2.8 billion in May and $5.2 in June). This has ameliorated international investor confidence in Egypt. Indeed, the country raised $5 billion by issuing US dollar-denominated sovereign bonds in May. Egypt is now seeking another $4 billion from other international lenders. Crucially, assuming Egypt manages to get the $4 billion loan, which would allow it to raise a total of $17 billion, Egypt would still be short on foreign funding to finance its $33 billion in FFR. Therefore, the currency will come under pressure of devaluation. As we argue below, the nation’s public debt sustainability is in jeopardy unless local currency interest rates are brought down substantially. This can only happen if the currency is allowed to depreciate. Consistently, foreign investors might be unwilling to lend to Egypt until interest rates are pushed lower and the country’s public debt trajectory is placed back on a sustainable path. Finally, the Egyptian pound has once again become expensive according to the real effective exchange rate (REER) which is based on both consumer and producer prices (Chart I-10). Bottom Line: Egypt is facing sharply slowing foreign inflows due to both the crash in oil prices and the global pandemic. This is occurring amid increased FFRs. Meanwhile, the CBE’s net FX reserves are insufficient to defend the exchange rate. Public Debt Sustainability The BoP strains discussed above are forcing the CBE to keep interest rates high to prevent the currency from depreciating. Yet the country’s public debt is on a dangerous path due to elevated interest rates. In turn, without currency devaluation that ultimately allows local interest rates to drop dramatically, the sustainability of Egypt’s public debt will worsen considerably. The BoP strains discussed above are forcing the CBE to keep interest rates high to prevent the currency from depreciating. Yet the country’s public debt is on a dangerous path due to elevated interest rates. To start, Egypt’s public debt stands at 97% of GDP – local currency and foreign currency debt account for 79% and 18% of GDP respectively (Chart I-11, top panel). Chart I-12 illustrates that interest payments on public debt is already using up 60% of government revenue and stands at 10% of GDP. Chart I-11Egypt: Public Debt Profile Egypt: Public Debt Profile Egypt: Public Debt Profile Chart I-12The Government's Interest Payments Are Unsustainable The Government's Interest Payments Are Unsustainable The Government's Interest Payments Are Unsustainable   Therefore, if the CBE keeps interest rates at the current level, then the government will continue to pay high interest on its debt. Generally, two conditions need to be met to ensure public debt sustainability in any country (i.e., to ensure that the public debt-to-GDP ratio does not to surge). Nominal GDP growth needs to be higher than government borrowing costs. The government needs to run persistently large primary fiscal surpluses. Chart I-13Egypt: Nominal GDP Growth And Government Borrowing Costs Egypt: Nominal GDP Growth And Government Borrowing Costs Egypt: Nominal GDP Growth And Government Borrowing Costs Regarding the first condition, nominal GDP growth was already dangerously close to the level of Egypt’s government borrowing costs even before the pandemic hit Egypt (Chart I-13). With the pandemic, both domestic demand and exports have plunged. Consequently, nominal GDP is likely close to zero while local currency borrowing costs are above 10%. So long as nominal GDP growth remains below borrowing costs, the public debt sustainability will continue to deteriorate. As to the second condition, Egypt only started running primary fiscal surpluses in 2018 as it implemented extremely tight fiscal policy by cutting non-interest expenditures (Chart I-14). However, that was only possible because economic growth was then strong. As growth has slumped, government revenue is most likely shrinking. Chart I-14Egypt Only Recently Started Running A Primary Fiscal Surplus Egypt Only Recently Started Running A Primary Fiscal Surplus Egypt Only Recently Started Running A Primary Fiscal Surplus Tightening fiscal policy amid the economic downturn will be ruinous. Cutting non-interest expenditures further will depress the already weak economy, drying up both nominal GDP and government revenues even more. This will bring about a vicious economic cycle. Needless to say, the latter option is politically unviable. The most feasible option to ensure sustainability of public debt dynamics is to bring down domestic interest rates considerably. Lower local interest rates will reduce interest expenditures on its domestic debt and will either narrow overall fiscal deficit or free up space for the government to spend elsewhere, boosting much needed economic growth. Meanwhile lower interest rates will boost demand for credit and revive private-sector domestic demand. Provided Egypt’s public debt has a short maturity profile, lower interest rates will reasonably quickly feed into lower interest payments for the government. This means that lower interest rates could reasonably quickly feed to lower interest payments for the government. Importantly, there is a trade-off between the exchange rates and interest rates. Lowering interest rates entail currency depreciation. According to the impossible trinity theory, a central bank facing an open capital needs to choose between controlling interest rates or the exchange rate, it cannot control both simultaneously. As such, if the Central Bank of Egypt opts to bring down local interest rates, while keeping the capital account reasonably open, it needs to tolerate a weaker currency amid its ongoing BoP strains. Bottom Line: Public debt dynamics are treading on a dangerous path. Egypt needs to bring down local interest rates down substantially and rapidly. And in so doing, the CBE cannot control and defend the exchange rate. Devaluation Is Needed All in all, the Egyptian authorities are facing a tight tradeoff: (1) either they continue to defend the currency at the expense of depressing the economy and worsening public debt dynamic, or (2) they tolerate a one-off currency devaluation which would allow the monetary authorities reduce interest rates aggressively. The latter will help stimulate economic growth and make public debt sustainable. Specifically, if the Central Bank of Egypt opts for defending the currency from depreciation, it will need to tolerate much higher interest rates for a long period of time. The CBE would essentially need to deplete whatever little net FX reserves it currently has to fund BoP deficits. This would simultaneously shrink local banking system liquidity, pushing domestic interbank rates higher.  All in all, the Egyptian authorities are facing a tight tradeoff: (1) either they continue to defend the currency at the expense of depressing the economy and worsening public debt dynamic, or (2) they tolerate a one-off currency devaluation which would allow the monetary authorities reduce interest rates aggressively. Worryingly, not only would high interest rates devastate the already shaky Egyptian economy, but higher domestic interest rates carry major ramifications for Egypt’s public debt sustainability as discussed earlier. A one-off currency devaluation is painful and carries some political risks yet, it is still the least worst choice for Egypt from a longer-term perspective. Although inflation will spike due to pass-through from currency devaluation, it will be a transitory one-off increase (Chart I-15). Besides, the pertinent risk to the Egyptian economy currently is low inflation and high real interest rates (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Egypt: Currency-Induced Inflation Is A One-Off Egypt: Currency-Induced Inflation Is A One-Off Egypt: Currency-Induced Inflation Is A One-Off Chart I-16Egypt: Real Interest Rates Are High Egypt: Real Interest Rates Are High Egypt: Real Interest Rates Are High     In turn, currency depreciation will ultimately provide the CBE with scope to reduce its policy rate which will help stimulate the ailing economy as well as make public debt trajectory more sustainable. Finally, odds are high that Egyptian authorities might choose to devalue the currency sooner rather than later. The basis for this is that the government’s foreign public debt is still relatively small at 18% of the GDP and 19% of the total government debt (Chart I-11, on page 8). Further, the majority (70%) of Egypt’s foreign public debt remains linked to international and bilateral government loans making it easier to renegotiate their terms than in the case of publicly traded sovereign US dollar bonds (Chart I-11, bottom panel). This means that currency depreciation will not materially deteriorate the government’s debt servicing ability. Furthermore, Egypt has experience managing and tolerating currency depreciation. The currency depreciated against the US dollar by 50% in 2016 and before that by 12% in 2013. Bottom Line: The Central Bank of Egypt will not hike interest rates or sell its foreign currency reserves for too long to defend the pound. Odds are high that it will allow the currency to depreciate and will cut interest rates materially. Investment Recommendations Chart I-17Egyptian Pound In The Forward Market Egyptian Pound In The Forward Market Egyptian Pound In The Forward Market Investors should buy Egyptian 3-year local currency bonds while hedging their currency exposure. The basis is that low inflation and a depressed economy in Egypt will lead the CBE to cut rates by several hundred basis points over the next 12 months while allowing currency to depreciate. Forward markets are pricing 5% depreciation in the EGP in the next 6 months and 10% in the next 12 months (Chart I-17). We would assign a higher probability of depreciation.   For now, EM credit portfolios should have a neutral allocation on Egyptian sovereign credit. While another potential drop in oil prices and the currency devaluation could push sovereign spreads wider (Chart I-18), eventually large rate cuts by the CBE will make public debt dynamics more sustainable. Absolute return investors should wait for devaluation to go long on Egypt’s US dollar sovereign bonds. Chart I-18Remain Neutral On Egypt's Sovereign Credit Remain Neutral On Egypt's Sovereign Credit Remain Neutral On Egypt's Sovereign Credit Chart I-19Remain Neutral On Egyptian Equities Remain Neutral On Egyptian Equities Remain Neutral On Egyptian Equities   Equity investors should keep a neutral allocation on Egyptian stocks with an EM equity portfolio (Chart I-19). Lower interest rates ahead will eventually boost this stock market. Ayman Kawtharani Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com      1 This is the view of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service and it differs from the view of BCA’s Commodities and Energy Strategy service. 2 We exclude the Central Bank’s foreign liabilities due in 2020 as they are mostly deposits at the Central Bank of Egypt owed to Gulf countries. It is highly likely that Gulf lenders will agree to extend these deposits given the difficulties Egypt is experiencing. 3 Excluding the Central Bank’s foreign liabilities due in the next 12 months. Please refer to above footnote. 4 The amount of net foreign exchange reserves currently at the Central Bank – i.e. excluding the Bank’s foreign liabilities– are now low at $8 billion. 5 Gulf Co-operation Countries (GCC) are in no position to provide much financial assistance due to the pandemic and oil crash as they are under severe financial strain themselves. Also, GCC countries run strict currency pegs and need to preserve their dwindling foreign exchange reserves to defend their currency pegs to the US dollar.

Highlights Rising Bond Yields: Global risk assets are discounting a V-shaped economic recovery. With economic data starting to revive as more economies emerge from virus-related shutdowns, bond yields are showing signs of following suit. Duration Strategy: Even with global yields showing signs of a cyclical bottom, we continue to recommend a neutral duration stance. Central banks will remain highly accommodative given the lack of inflationary pressures after the deep COVID-19 recessions. There are still significant risks in the coming months from a potential second wave of coronavirus after economies reopen, worsening US-China relations and domestic US sociopolitical turmoil. Duration Proxy Trades: Given those lingering uncertainties, we prefer to focus on “duration-lite” trades in the developed economies, like overweighting inflation-linked government bonds versus nominals as inflation expectations will drift higher over the next 6-12 months. Feature Dear Client, Next week, instead of publishing a regular Weekly Report, we will hold a webcast on Tuesday, June 16 at 10:00 am ET, discussing our latest views on global fixed income markets. The format will be a short presentation, followed by a Q&A session. We hope you will join us, armed with interesting questions. Kind regards, Rob Robis, Chief Fixed Income Strategist Chart of the WeekBond Yields Bottoming, But Backdrop Not Yet Bearish Bond Yields Bottoming, But Backdrop Not Yet Bearish Bond Yields Bottoming, But Backdrop Not Yet Bearish Bond yields around the world awoke from their COVID-19 induced slumber last week, responding to a growing body of evidence indicating that global growth has bottomed. Over a span of four days, benchmark 10-year government bond yields rose in the US (+20bps), Germany (+13bps), Canada (+20bps), China (+14bps), Japan (+4bps), Mexico (+13bps) and the UK (+12bps). There is potential for yields to continue drifting higher over the next few months, as more countries reopen from virus-related shutdowns. The bounce already seen in survey data like manufacturing and services PMIs, as well as economic sentiment measures like the global ZEW index, should soon translate into real improvements in activity data. This comes at a time when rising commodity prices, most notably oil, suggest that depressed inflation expectations can lead bond yields higher. The cyclical bottom for global yields has likely passed, based on the improvement already seen in our own Global Duration Indicator (Chart of the Week). However, economic policy uncertainty remains elevated as devastated economies try to reopen from lockdowns. In addition, our Central Bank Monitors continue to indicate pressure on policymakers to keep interest rates as low as possible to maintain easy financial conditions as easy as possible. Tighter monetary policies remain a distant prospect, given very high unemployment rates. The cyclical bottom for global yields has likely passed, based on the improvement already seen in our own Global Duration Indicator. Amid those uncertainties, we recommend maintaining a neutral strategic (6-12 months) and tactical (0-6 months) stance on overall duration exposure in fixed income portfolios. Instead, we prefer focusing on lower volatility trades that will benefit from improving global growth and policy reflation, like going long inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt throughout the developed markets with breakevens looking too low on our models. Why Are Bond Yields Rising Now? We see five main reasons why global bond yields have started to move higher: 1) Investor risk aversion is declining There has been a sharp recovery in global risk appetite since late March, diminishing the demand for risk-free global government debt. In the US, the S&P 500 is up 43% from its March lows, while the NASDAQ index is back to the all-time highs reached before the coronavirus turned into a global pandemic (Chart 2). US corporate debt has also performed well since the March 23rd peak in spreads, with investment grade and high-yield spreads down -227bps and -564bps, respectively. Non-US assets are also flying, with emerging market (EM) equities up 29% and EM USD-denominated corporate debt up 14% in excess return terms over US Treasuries since the March trough. Even severely lagging assets like European bank stocks are showing a pulse, up 38% since the lows of May 15. Commodity prices are also improving, led not only by gains in oil after the April crash by recoveries in the prices of growth-sensitive commodities like copper (+17%) and lumber (+42%). Add it all up, and the message is clear: investors now prefer risk to safety, which has tempered the demand for government bonds. The flipside of the boom in risk appetite is weakening prices for safe haven assets (Chart 3). The price of gold in US dollar terms is down -4% from the 2020 high on May 20, while the euro price of gold is down –6%. Safe haven currencies like the Japanese yen and Swiss franc have underperformed, while interest rate volatility measures like the US MOVE index and long-dated euro swaption volatility are back to the pre-coronavirus lows. Chart 2Risk Assets Are Booming Worldwide Risk Assets Are Booming Worldwide Risk Assets Are Booming Worldwide Chart 3Safe Haven Trades Losing Luster Safe Haven Trades Losing Luster Safe Haven Trades Losing Luster Add it all up, and the message is clear: investors now prefer risk to safety, which has tempered the demand for government bonds that helped drive yields lower when risk assets were tanking in late February and March. 2) Global growth is improving One of the reasons for the improvement in investor risk appetite is belief that the world economy has exited from the severe COVID-19 global recession. While timely real data is still coming in slowly given reporting lags, there has been a notable bounce in survey data in many countries. PMIs for both manufacturing and services climbed higher in May (Chart 4). The expectations components of economic confidence measures like the ZEW indices have also recovered the losses seen in February and March. Data surprises have also been increasingly on the positive side of late in China, Europe and the US, including the shocking 2.5 million increase in US employment in May. However, the US unemployment rate remains very high at 13.3%, indicating abundant spare capacity that will likely take years, not months, to work off – a problem that most of the world will continue to deal with post-recession. 3) Central bank liquidity is booming The other main reason for the boom in risk asset performance that has started to put upward pressure on bond yields is the extremely accommodative stance of global monetary policy. This is occurring through 0% policy rates in the developed economies but, even more importantly, the aggressive expansion of central bank balance sheets through quantitative easing (QE). The Fed has its foot firmly on the monetary accelerator, with year-over-year growth in its balance sheet of 87% (Chart 5). The European Central Bank (ECB) is no slouch, though, with its balance sheet up 19% from a year ago and having expanded its Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) by another €600 billion last week. Chart 4Signs Of Life In The Global Economy Signs Of Life In The Global Economy Signs Of Life In The Global Economy Chart 5'QE Forever' Driving Money From Bonds To Risk Assets QE Forever' Driving Money From Bonds To Risk Assets QE Forever' Driving Money From Bonds To Risk Assets The combined annual growth of the central bank balance sheets for the “G4” (the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England) is now up to 26%. The rate of G4 balance sheet expansion has been a reliable leading indicator of global risk asset performance since the 2008 financial crisis (with about a 12-month lead), and the current boom in “liquidity” suggests that the current rise in global equity and corporate bond markets can continue over the next year. Easing global financial conditions are now returning to levels that should support economic growth in the coming months, helping to mitigate (but not eliminate) the potential credit stresses from companies that have suffered during the COVID-19 recession. This recovery remains fragile, however, and policymakers will continue to maintain an extremely dovish policy bias – even with significant fiscal stimulus measures also in place to help economies climb out of recession. This suggests that the current rise in global bond yields is not the start of a new bond bear market driven by expectations of tighter monetary policies. The current rise in global bond yields is not the start of a new bond bear market driven by expectations of tighter monetary policies. Chart 6Global Bond Sentiment Is Still Very Bullish Global Bond Sentiment Is Still Very Bullish Global Bond Sentiment Is Still Very Bullish 4) Bullish sentiment for bonds is at extremes From a contrarian perspective, another factor helping put a floor underneath bond yields is investor sentiment towards fixed income, which remains bullish. The widely followed ZEW survey of economic forecasters also contains a question on the expected change in bond yields over the next year. The latest read on the surveys shows a net balance still expecting lower bond yields in the US, Germany, the UK and Japan, nearing levels seen prior to the end of the recessionary bond bull markets in the early 2000s and after the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 6). In addition, the Market Vane survey of bullish sentiment on US Treasuries is nearing past cyclical peaks, suggesting limited scope for new bond buyers that could drive US yields to new lows. 5) Inflation expectations are moving higher Finally, global yields are rising because the inflation expectations component of yields has started to move higher. The hyper-easy stance of monetary policy is playing a role here. Market-based inflation expectations measures like the breakevens on inflation-linked bonds (or CPI swap rates) are a vote of confidence by investors in the “appropriateness” of policy settings. The fact that inflation expectations are now drifting higher suggests that bond markets now believe that central banks are now "easy" enough to give inflation a shot at rising sustainably as growth recovers. Global yields are rising because the inflation expectations component of yields has started to move higher. Chart 7Oil Prices & Breakeven Inflation Rates Are Both Recovering Oil Prices & Breakeven Inflation Rates Are Both Recovering Oil Prices & Breakeven Inflation Rates Are Both Recovering This move higher in inflation expectations can continue in the coming months, particularly with global oil prices likely to move even higher. Our colleagues at BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy are quite bullish on oil prices, forecasting the benchmark Brent oil price to rise to around $50/bbl by the end of 2020 and continuing up to $78/bbl by the end of 2021. Such an outcome would push up market-based inflation expectations, and likely put more upward pressure on nominal bond yields, given the strong correlation between oil and inflation breakevens in the developed economies that has existed over the past decade (Chart 7). Bottom Line: Global risk assets are discounting a V-shaped economic recovery. With economic data starting to revive as more economies emerge from virus-related shutdowns, bond yields are showing signs of following suit. Duration Strategy For The Next Few Months The trends in growth, inflation and financial conditions all suggest bond yields can continue to drift higher over at least the next 3-6 months. Yet given the potential for a negative shock from a second wave of coronavirus infection, or geopolitical uncertainties in a volatile US election year, a below-benchmark global duration stance is not yet warranted. This is especially true with unemployment rates in most countries remaining elevated even as growth rebounds from recession, forcing central banks to maintain a very dovish policy posture. Our “Risk Checklist” that we have been monitoring to move to a more aggressive recommended investment stance on global spread product – the US dollar, the VIX and the number of new COVID-19 cases - can also be helpful in helping us determine when to shift to a more defensive bias on global duration. On that note, the Checklist still argues for a neutral duration stance, rather than positioning for a big move higher in yields. The US dollar has started to soften, but remains at a very high level relative to interest rate differentials (Chart 8). A weaker greenback is a source of global monetary reflation, primarily through changes in the prices of commodities and other traded goods that are denominated in dollars, but also by helping alleviate funding pressures for companies that have borrowed heavily in US dollars (especially in the emerging world). The dollar is also an “anti-growth” currency that appreciates during periods of slowing global growth, and vice versa, so some depreciation should unfold as more of the world economy emerges from lockdown (middle panel). The VIX index – a measure of investor uncertainty - continues to climb down from the massive surge in February and March, now sitting at 26 after peaking around 80. This is the one part of our Risk Checklist that argues for reducing duration exposure now. We prefer trades that will benefit from the combination of continued global policy reflation and growing investor risk appetite. We call these “duration-lite” trades. The daily number of new reported cases of COVID-19 (using data from the World Health Organization) has come down dramatically in Europe, but in the US the decline in new cases has stalled over the past month – a worrisome sign as the country continues to reopen amid mass protests in major cities (Chart 9). New cases outside the US and Europe are rapidly moving higher, however, primarily in major Latin American countries like Brazil and Mexico. This suggests that while there is a concern about a “second wave” of coronavirus later in the year, the risks from the first wave are far from over. Chart 8Still Not Much Reflationary Push From A Weaker USD Still Not Much Reflationary Push From A Weaker USD Still Not Much Reflationary Push From A Weaker USD Chart 9The COVID-19 Threat Has Not Gone Away The COVID-19 Threat Has Not Gone Away The COVID-19 Threat Has Not Gone Away Instead of shifting to a below-benchmark recommended stance on overall portfolio duration too soon in the cycle, we prefer trades that will benefit from the combination of continued global policy reflation and growing investor risk appetite. We call these “duration-lite” trades. Specifically, we like owning inflation-linked government bonds versus nominal debt, while also positioning for steeper government yield curves (on a duration-neutral basis). Longer-dated breakeven inflation rates within the major developed markets are becoming increasingly correlated to both the level of 10-year government bond yields (Chart 10) and the slope of the 2-year/10-year yield curve (Chart 11). Chart 10Rising Inflation Expectations Will Lead To Higher Bond Yields ... Rising Inflation Expectations Will Lead To Higher Bond Yields ... Rising Inflation Expectations Will Lead To Higher Bond Yields ... Chart 11... And Steeper Yield Curves ... And Steeper Yield Curves ... And Steeper Yield Curves In terms of country selection for these trades, we look to the valuations on inflation-linked bond breakevens from our modeling framework that we introduced back in late April.1 In that framework, we model 10-year breakevens as a function of oil prices, exchange rates and the long-run trend in realized inflation. Chart 12Global Inflation Breakevens Look Cheap On Our Models Global Inflation Breakevens Look Cheap On Our Models Global Inflation Breakevens Look Cheap On Our Models In Chart 12, we show the deviation of 10-year inflation breakevens from the model-implied fair value, shown both terms of standard deviations and basis points. The “cheapest” breakevens from our models are for inflation-linked bonds in Italy and Canada, although almost all counties (outside of the UK) have breakevens to look far too low. This suggests that global bond investors should consider a multi-country portfolio of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal paying equivalents – or in countries where the inflation-linked bond markets are small and illiquid, duration-neutral yield curve steepeners - as a more efficient way to play for a continuation of the current reflationary global backdrop without taking duration risk. Bottom Line: Even with global yields showing signs of a cyclical bottom, we continue to recommend a neutral duration stance. Given the lingering uncertainties about a second wave of coronavirus, and the rising political and social tensions in the US only five months before the presidential election, we prefer to focus on “duration-lite” trades in the developed economies - like overweighting inflation-linked government bonds versus nominals as inflation expectations will drift higher over the next 6-12 months.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low", dated April 28, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Yields Are Stirring, But It’s Not Yet A Bond Bear Market Global Yields Are Stirring, But It’s Not Yet A Bond Bear Market Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights This year’s NPC refrained from announcing a numeric economic growth target. However, the targeted employment growth will be a reliable indicator of the government’s pain threshold.  The announced stimulus package did not exceed market expectations.  At the same time, the government is keeping the liquidity tap open and the fiscal budget flexible.  We expect the government to utilize both policy tools before July. The stimulus focuses on supporting infrastructure investment and consumption, with marginal loosening of property market restrictions. While we maintain a positive view on Chinese equities in the next 6 to 12 months, we favor large cap stocks in domestic demand-driven sectors, to hedge rising geopolitical risks. We also recommend investors to hedge their RMB exposure in Chinese stocks by opening a long USD-CNH trade, with the expectation that further weakness in the RMB is likely in Q2. Feature This year’s National People’s Congress (NPC) delivered two surprises on opening day: a new national security bill on Hong Kong SAR, which will be voted on at the May 28th plenary session;1 and a lack of an annual economic growth target in the Government Work Report (GWR), for the first time since the early 1990s. Chinese stock prices in both the onshore and offshore markets plunged following Friday’s NPC session (Chart 1). Chart 1Messages From This Year's NPC Did Not Bode Well For Market Sentiment Messages From This Year's NPC Did Not Bode Well For Market Sentiment Messages From This Year's NPC Did Not Bode Well For Market Sentiment Numeric targets in the stimulus package announced at the NPC did not exceed the consensus.  However, citing global geopolitical and economic uncertainties, Chinese policymakers have kept the liquidity tap open and the fiscal budget flexible. This means that policymakers can add to the existing stimulus without the approval of the NPC at the Politburo’s mid-year review in July.  Investors will likely turn their focus back to economic fundamentals in the coming months. In Q2, the market will trade on the back of disappointing corporate earnings and news from the geopolitical front. In H2, however, a confluence of further domestic policy easing and a global economic recovery should lift Chinese corporate earnings. As such, our cyclical (6-12 months) outlook on both China’s economic recovery and equity performance remains upbeat. The Economy: No Growth Target ≠ No Growth The GWR set targets for this year’s urban job creation and unemployment rate, even though it refrained from setting an explicit objective for economic growth in 2020 (Table 1). A numeric target on job growth implicitly provides a floor to the economy, i.e., stimulus will have to step up if the economy does not provide adequate jobs to meet the employment target. Table 1No Growth Target, But Big Spending Taking The Pulse Of The People’s Congress Taking The Pulse Of The People’s Congress Anecdotes indicate that, to keep the unemployment rate in abeyance, the government has mandated corporations to retain their employees on payrolls even if there is no pay. This may help to explain the meager 6.0% unemployment rate in China compared with a near 20% rate in the US. It is undoubtedly much harder to create new jobs than to maintain a stable unemployment rate. Economic and demand growth is still the foundation for job growth, and administrative measures can only go so far in creating new jobs, particularly in the private sector. The government pledges to create 9 million new jobs in 2020, about 20% lower than the target of 11 million new jobs set for last year. In 2019, 13.52 million urban jobs were created and the nominal GDP expanded at 7.8%. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that China economy needs to grow by 4-5% from 2019 (in nominal terms) to achieve the employment target for this year. Given that Q1 registered a 5.3% contraction, China’s economy must expand by at least 8% (year on year) in H2 (Chart 2). Chart 2Employment Growth Will Be This Year's Government Policy Anchor Employment Growth Will Be This Year's Government Policy Anchor Employment Growth Will Be This Year's Government Policy Anchor Stimulus: Keeping Options Open “We will use a variety of tools such as required reserve ratio reductions, interest rate cuts, and re-lending to enable M2 money supply and aggregate financing to grow at notably higher rates than last year.”  – Li Keqiang at the NPC, May 22, 2020. Chart 3Further Monetary Easing Likely In June Further Monetary Easing Likely In June Further Monetary Easing Likely In June This statement makes it clear that policymakers intend to keep the liquidity tap running. The easing of local government financing vehicle (LGFV) borrowing and shadow banking regulations also indicates that Chinese policymakers have given an all-clear signal to accelerate money and credit growth. We expect another round of cuts in interest rates and required reserve rates ahead of the July Politburo meeting.  The credit impulse should reach around 35% of China's GDP this year, well above the 25% in 2019 (Chart 3). A notable exception in this year’s GWR is that it did not put a lid on the size of fiscal stimulus. The fiscal deficit for 2020 is set at an ambiguous “above 3.6% of GDP”. Furthermore, the GWR states that the current policies “can be improved according to changes in the economic situation,” which will allow for greater leeway in easing. We believe that while the government pledges to maintain a measured stimulus, more easing actions are inevitable. China’s post-pandemic economic recovery is on track and not yet close to the policymakers’ pain threshold. However, the global economy faces tremendous uncertainties.  The pandemic is not yet controlled worldwide and the US-China rivalry is expected to grow more acrimonious in the months to come. A temporary setback in China’s economic recovery and financial market in Q2 is a strong possibility. Employment is also set to come under more pressure in Q2 when an estimate of 8.7 million new college graduates enter the job market. As mentioned in our previous report, China’s job losses so far are concentrated in lower-skilled, lower-income manufacturing and service sectors.2 However, the new graduates will seek middle-income, white-collar jobs, which can only be provided by real demand in the economy. Young middle-class professionals in China are not only a major source of consumption growth, but also are a source of domestic instability if they are discontent – a political risk we do not think the Chinese leadership is willing to take. Fiscal Stimulus: Largest On Record Raw material prices have closely tracked Chinese credit cycles since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). China’s fiscal impulse and government-led investment have helped to speed up commodity price recoveries and bridged the gap between economic slowdowns and a rebound in the private sector (Chart 4). Fiscal deficit will likely be enlarged by more than 3% of GDP in 2020 from last year's near 5% of GDP, and will be the largest annual deficit increase on record. The announced budgetary fiscal deficit in 2020 is set at above 3.6% of GDP, but the broad-measure fiscal deficit will most likely reach to more than 8% of GDP this year when taking into account both government budgetary and fund expenditures (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Prices Will Get A Lift From Fiscal Stimulus Commodity Prices Will Get A Lift From Fiscal Stimulus Commodity Prices Will Get A Lift From Fiscal Stimulus Chart 5Fiscal Deficit Largest In Decades Fiscal Deficit Largest In Decades Fiscal Deficit Largest In Decades Chart 6"New Infrastructure" Investment Moved Into The Fast Lane "New Infrastructure" Investment Moved Into The Fast Lane "New Infrastructure" Investment Moved Into The Fast Lane The local government special purpose bond (SPB) budget is set at 3.75 trillion, 1.6 trillion above last year. We expect 80% of the 2020 SPB to be invested in infrastructure projects. With the additional 700 billion yuan of central government budgetary investment fund, infrastructure investment will be increased by 2.5 trillion compared with 2019, a 10% growth (Chart 6). A reason why the market reacted negatively to the announced stimulus is that the headline figure for central government special treasury bonds (STB) is below market expectations. However, STBs are special transfers from the central government to localities to replenish fiscal reserve funds, which have little stimulative impact on business activity. The fact that the figure is below market expectations does not have the same kind of market relevance as government expenditure or local government SPB. Real Estate: More Dovish Chinese policymakers have always maintained an enigmatic attitude towards the housing sector. Although no housing stimulus was announced this year, the tone on keeping housing demand in check has softened. Phrases have been added to this year’s GWR, allowing provincial and city officials to adjust their housing policies. Housing policy has become progressively less restrictive since mid-2019 and we anticipate some modest property stimulus going forward. Chart 7Construction Set To Pick Up Construction Set To Pick Up Construction Set To Pick Up As mentioned in our previous reports, the massive contraction in fiscal revenue growth this year will inevitably push up land auctions and housing construction activity (Chart 7). We continue to expect a strong recovery in housing demand, particularly in China’s top-tier cities. Lower mortgage rates, easier access to bank loans and the preference to hold hard assets to hedge inflation, all will drive up housing demand among higher-income Chinese households. High-frequency data show that since the beginning of May, the contraction in property sales in tier-1 and tier-2 cities have narrowed by 17 percentage points from April.  Investment Conclusions The NPC delivered a stimulus package that did not exceed market expectations, which means that investors will be re-focusing on China’s economic fundamentals in the near term.  We think that geopolitical tensions and weak corporate earnings will dominate the performance of equities in Q2.  On the geopolitical front, Beijing’s move to pass a new national security law on Hong Kong will likely be met with retaliatory actions from the US, adding fuel to the US-China tensions. The near-term response in the equity market will be negative if President Trump follows through with his retaliatory threats. Consequently, we recommend investors to hedge their RMB exposure in Chinese stocks by opening a long USD-CNH trade, with the expectation that further weakness in the RMB is likely in Q2. On China’s domestic economy, industrial profit growth will likely remain in contraction during most of Q2, before returning to modest positive growth in H2. As such, near-term investors’ risk appetite will experience periods of setbacks, and there will be better price entry points to go long on Chinese stocks in both relative and absolute terms. We remain positive on Chinese equities in the next 6 to 12 months. The speed of the economic recovery will likely accelerate in H2, and there is a distinct possibility that the stimulus will step up following a lackluster economic recovery in Q2. Some cyclical industries will significantly benefit from the ongoing stimulus and recover ahead of the broad market. We favor consumer discretionary stocks in both onshore and offshore equity markets.3 We also recommend that investors focus on large cap firms that draw their revenues from domestic demand-oriented industries. This will help to hedge volatilities created from escalating US-China trade frictions.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 We will discuss the implications from the Hong Kong national security bill proposal in future research. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy, "A Consumption Recovery On Two Tracks," dated May 20 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy, "A Consumption Recovery On Two Tracks," dated May 20 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com   Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Fed/BoE NIRP: It is too soon for either the Fed or Bank of England to consider a move to a negative interest rate policy (NIRP), even with US and UK money markets flirting with pricing in that outcome. Lessons from “NIRP 1.0”: In the countries that did go to negative rates in 2014-16 (Japan, Switzerland, the euro area, Sweden and Denmark), there existed some combination of weak economies, near-0% inflation, anemic credit growth or unwanted currency appreciation. Negative rates were needed to help fight those trends by driving down longer-term bond yields. NIRP 2.0?: Among the major countries without negative rate policies in effect (the US, UK, Canada and Australia), there is no evidence that longer-term borrowing rates need to fall further to boost credit growth, even in the midst of deep recessions. However, additional strength of the stubbornly resilient US dollar could be the deflationary shock that eventually forces the Fed into NIRP. Feature Chart 1NIRP 2.0 Would Trigger A Surge Of Negative Yielding Bonds NIRP 2.0 Would Trigger A Surge Of Negative Yielding Bonds NIRP 2.0 Would Trigger A Surge Of Negative Yielding Bonds Within a 20-month window in 2014-16, the central banks of Japan, Sweden, the euro area, Switzerland and Denmark all cut policy interest rates to below 0% - where they remain to this day. Fast forward to 2020, in the midst of a global pandemic and deep worldwide recession that has already forced major developed market central banks to cut rates close to 0%, there is now increased speculation that the negative interest rate policy (NIRP) club might soon get a few new members. The Federal Reserve has been front and center in that group. Fed funds futures contracts had recently priced in slightly negative rates in 2021, despite Fed Chair Jerome Powell repeatedly saying that a sub-0% funds rate was not in the Fed’s plans. The Bank of England (BoE) has also seen markets inch toward pricing in negative rates, although BoE officials have been more open to the idea of negative rates as a viable policy choice. Even the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has suggested that negative rates may be needed there soon. An expansion of the list of countries that have moved to negative rates, beyond the “NIRP 1.0” group of 2014-16, has the potential to drive down global bond yields even further. Already, there is $11 trillion of negative yielding debt within the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate index, representing 20% of the total (Chart 1) If there is a shift to negative rates in the potential “NIRP 2.0” group of major developed economies with policy rates now near 0% – a list that includes the US, the UK, Canada and Australia – then the amount of negative yielding debt worldwide will soar to new highs. An expansion of the list of countries that have moved to negative rates, beyond the “NIRP 1.0” group of 2014-16, has the potential to drive down global bond yields even further. In this report, we take a look at the conditions that led the NIRP 1.0 countries to shift to negative rates in the middle of the last decade, to see if any similarities exist in non-NIRP countries today. We conclude that the conditions are not yet in place for a shift to sub-0% policy rates in the US, the UK, Canada or Australia – all countries where central banks still have other policy tools available to provide stimulus before resorting to negative rates. How Negative Interest Rates Can “Work” To Revive Growth Broadly speaking, central banks around the world have had difficulty meeting their inflation targets since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The main reason for this has been sub-par economic growth, much of which is structural due to aging demographics and weak productivity. Since central bankers must stick to their legislated inflation targeting mandates, they are forced to cut rates when economic growth and inflation are too low. If real economic growth remains weak for structural reasons, then central banks can enter into a cycle of continually cutting rates all the way to zero, or even below zero, in order to try and prevent low inflation from becoming entrenched into longer-term inflation expectations. If growth and inflation continue to languish even after policy rates have reached 0%, then other tools must be used to ease monetary conditions to try and stimulate economies. These typically involve driving down longer-term borrowing rates (bond yields) through dovish forward guidance on future monetary policy, bond purchases through quantitative easing (QE) and, if those don’t work, moving to negative policy interest rates. A nice summary indicator to identify this intertwined dynamic of real economic growth and inflation is to look at the trend growth rate of nominal GDP. Chart 2 shows the policy interest rates three-year annualized trend of nominal GDP growth for the NIRP 1.0 countries, dating back to before the 2008 crisis. Japan stands out as the weakest of the group, with trend nominal growth contracting during and after the 2009 recession, while struggling to reach even +2% since then. The euro area, Sweden and Switzerland all enjoyed +5% nominal growth prior to 2008, before a plunge to the 1-2% range during and after the recession. After that, the three countries had varying degrees of economic success. Between 2016 and 2019, Sweden saw trend nominal growth between 4-5%, while the euro area struggled to achieve even +3% nominal growth and Switzerland maintained a Japan-like pace. Chart 2Fewer Tools Left For NIRP 1.0 Countries To Boost Growth Fewer Tools Left For NIRP 1.0 Countries To Boost Growth Fewer Tools Left For NIRP 1.0 Countries To Boost Growth Chart 3NIRP 2.0 Candidates Can Still Expand QE First NIRP 2.0 Candidates Can Still Expand QE First NIRP 2.0 Candidates Can Still Expand QE First The European Central Bank (ECB), Swiss National Bank (SNB), the Bank of Japan (BoJ) and Sweden’s Riksbank all cut policy rates aggressively in 2008/09, helping spur a recovery in nominal growth. The central banks had to keep rates lower for longer because of structurally weak growth, leaving far less capacity to ease aggressively in response to the growth downturn a few years later. Eventually, the ECB, SNB, BoJ and Riksbank all went to negative rates between June 2014 and February 2016. The BoJ and SNB, facing persistent headwinds from strengthening currencies, also resorted to aggressive balance sheet expansion to provide additional monetary stimulus – trends that have continued to this day, with both central banks having balance sheets equal to around 120% of GDP. The experience of these four NIRP 1.0 countries showed that the move to negative rates was a process that began in the 2008 financial crisis. Central banks there were unable to raise rates much, if at all, after the recession, leaving little ammunition to fight the varying growth slowdowns suffered between 2012 and 2016. Eventually, rates had to be cut below 0% which, combined with QE, helped generate lower bond yields, weaker currencies and, eventually, a pickup in growth and inflation. Looking at the NIRP 2.0 candidate countries, nominal GDP growth has also struggled since the financial crisis, unable to stay much above 3-4% in the US, Canada and the UK. Only Australia has seen trend growth reach peaks closer to 5-6% (Chart 3). The Fed, BoE, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and Bank of Canada (BoC) all also cut rates aggressively in 2008/09, with the Fed and BoE doing QE buying of domestic bonds. Rates were left at low levels after the crisis in the US and UK, with only the RBA and, to a lesser extent, the BoC hiking rates after the recession ended. When growth slowed again in these countries during the 2014-16 period, the RBA and BoC did lower policy rates, but negative rates were avoided by all four central banks. Today, nominal growth rates have collapsed because of the COVID-19 lockdowns that have shuttered much of the world economy. Central banks that have had any remaining capacity to cut policy rates back to 0% have done so, yet this recession has already become so deep that additional declines in rates may be necessary to stabilize unemployment and inflation. The experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries shows that negative rates can also be effective in boosting growth – especially in countries suffering unwanted currency strength. One way to see the problem that monetary policymakers are now facing is by looking at Taylor Rule estimates of appropriate interest rate levels (Charts 4 and 5). Given the rapid surge in global unemployment rates to levels that, in some cases, have not been seen since the Great Depression (Chart 6), alongside decelerating inflation, Taylor Rule implied policy rates are now deeply negative in the US (-5.6%), Canada (-2.9%) and euro area (-1.7%).1 Taylor Rules show that moderately negative rates are also needed in Sweden (-0.5%), Switzerland (-0.2%) and Japan (-0.2%). Only in Australia (+1.3%) and the UK (+0.3%) is the Taylor Rule indicating that negative rates are not currently required. Chart 4Taylor Rule Says More Rate Cuts Needed Here … Taylor Rule Says More Rate Cuts Needed Here ... Taylor Rule Says More Rate Cuts Needed Here ... Chart 5… But Rates Are Appropriate Here ... But Rates Are Appropriate Here ... But Rates Are Appropriate Here Chart 6The Main Reason Why Taylor Rule Implied Policy Rates Have Plunged The Main Reason Why Taylor Rule Implied Policy Rates Have Plunged The Main Reason Why Taylor Rule Implied Policy Rates Have Plunged Among the potential NIRP 2.0 candidates, the negative rate option has been avoided and aggressive QE balance sheet expansion has been pursued by all of them – including the BoC and RBA who avoided asset purchase programs in 2008/09. Balance sheet expansion can be an adequate substitute for policy interest rate cuts by helping drive down longer-term bond yields and borrowing rates, which helps spur credit demand and, eventually, economic growth. Yet the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries shows that negative rates can also be effective in boosting growth – especially in countries suffering unwanted currency strength. How negative rates worked for the NIRP 1.0 countries For the ECB (Chart 7), BoJ (Chart 8), Riksbank (Chart 9) and SNB, the path from negative policy rates in 2014-16 to, eventually, faster economic growth and inflation followed a similar process: Chart 7The Euro Area's Negative Rates Experience The Euro Area's Negative Rates Experience The Euro Area's Negative Rates Experience Chart 8Japan's Negative Rates Experience Japan's Negative Rates Experience Japan's Negative Rates Experience Chart 9Sweden's Negative Rates Experience Sweden's Negative Rates Experience Sweden's Negative Rates Experience Moving to negative policy rates resulted in a sharp decline in nominal government bond yields The fall in yields helped trigger currency depreciation Nominal yields fell faster than inflation expectations, allowing real bond yields to turn negative Credit growth eventually began to pick up in response to the decline in real borrowing costs Inflation bottomed out and started to move higher. In Japan, the euro area and Sweden, this process played out fairly rapidly with credit growth and inflation bottoming within 6-12 months of the move to negative rates. Only in Switzerland (Chart 10), where the SNB gave up on currency intervention in January 2015, was the process delayed, as the surge in the currency triggered a move into deeper deflation and higher real bond yields. It took a little more than a year for the deflationary impact of the franc’s surge to fade, allowing real bond yields to decline and credit growth and inflation to bottom out and recover. The implication is clear – negative rates are good for real assets, but troublesome for banks.  Of course, we are talking about the pure economic effect of negative rates as a monetary policy tool. There are side effects of having negative nominal interest rates and deeply negative real bond yields, like surging asset values (especially for real assets like housing). Bank profitability is also negatively impacted by the sharp fall in longer-term bond yields that hurts net interest margins, even with higher lending volumes and reduced non-performing loans. Chart 10Switzerland's Negative Rates Experience Switzerland's Negative Rates Experience Switzerland's Negative Rates Experience Chart 11Negative Rates Are Good For Real Assets Negative Rates Are Good For Real Assets Negative Rates Are Good For Real Assets This can be seen in Charts 11 & 12, which compare the performance of real house prices and bank equities (relative to the domestic equity market) in the years leading up to, and following, the move to negative rates in 2014-16 for the NIRP 1.0 countries. The implication is clear – negative rates are good for real assets, but troublesome for banks. Chart 12Negative Rates Are Bad For Bank Stocks Negative Rates Are Bad For Bank Stocks Negative Rates Are Bad For Bank Stocks Nonetheless, the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries suggests that the potential NIRP 2.0 countries could see similar benefits on growth and inflation – but not before other policy options are exhausted first. Bottom Line: In the countries that did go to negative rates in 2014-16 (Japan, Switzerland, the euro area, Sweden and Denmark), there existed some combination of weak economies, near-0% inflation, anemic credit growth or unwanted currency appreciation. Negative rates were needed to help fight those trends by driving down longer-term bond yields and helping spur credit growth and, eventually, some inflation. Depreciating currencies had a big role to play in generating those outcomes. Negative Rates Are Not Necessary (Yet) In The NIRP 2.0 Countries As discussed earlier, the sharp surge in unemployment because of the COVID-19 global recession means that negative interest rates may now be “appropriate” in the US and Canada, based on Taylor Rules. Negative rates are not needed in the UK and Australia, however, although policy rates need to stay very low in both countries. A similar divergence can be seen in inflation. Headline CPI inflation rates were already under severe downward pressure from the recent collapse in oil prices. The surge in spare economic capacity opened up by the current recession can only exacerbate the disinflation trend. However, the drop in inflation has been more acute in the US and Canada relative to the UK and Australia, suggesting a greater need for the Fed and BoC to be even more stimulative than the BoE or RBA (Chart 13). A renewed breakout of the currency to new cyclical highs could be the deflationary signal that triggers the Fed into an even more aggressive policy response. There is one area where the Fed stands alone in this group. The relentless strength of the US dollar, even as the Fed’s rate cuts have taken much of the attractive carry out of the greenback, hurts US export competitiveness in a demand-deficient recessionary global economy. The strong dollar also acts as a dampening influence on US inflation. A renewed breakout of the currency to new cyclical highs could be the deflationary signal that triggers the Fed into an even more aggressive policy response (Chart 14). This would mirror the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries prior to the move to negative rates, where unwanted currency strength crippled both economic growth and inflation. Chart 13The Threat Of Deflation Could Trigger NIRP The Threat Of Deflation Could Trigger NIRP The Threat Of Deflation Could Trigger NIRP Chart 14Could More USD Strength Drag The Fed Into NIRP? Could More USD Strength Drag The Fed Into NIRP? Could More USD Strength Drag The Fed Into NIRP? For now, the Fed has many other policy options open before negative rates would be seriously considered. The reach of its QE programs could be expanded even further, even including equity purchases. The existing bond QE could be combined with a specific yield target (i.e. yield curve control) for shorter-maturity US Treasuries, helping anchor US yields at low levels for longer. Summing it all up, we do not see the need for any of the NIRP 2.0 candidates to move to negative rates anytime soon. The need for such extreme policies is not yet necessary, though, both in the US and the other NIRP 2.0 candidate countries. Bank lending is expanding at a double-digit pace in the US, and still at a decent 5-7% pace in the UK, Canada and Australia, even in the midst of a sharp recession (Chart 15). This may only be due to the numerous loan guarantees provided by governments as part of fiscal stimulus responses, or it may be related to companies running down credit lines to maintain liquidity. The experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries, though, suggests that credit growth must be far weaker than this to require negative policy rates to push down longer-term borrowing costs. Chart 15These Already Look Very "NIRP-ish" These Already Look Very "NIRP-ish" These Already Look Very "NIRP-ish" Chart 16Too Soon For Global NIRP, Maintain Neutral Global Duration Exposure Too Soon For Global NIRP, Maintain Neutral Global Duration Exposure Too Soon For Global NIRP, Maintain Neutral Global Duration Exposure Summing it all up, we do not see the need for any of the NIRP 2.0 candidates to move to negative rates anytime soon. In terms of investment implications, we continue to recommend an overall neutral stance on global duration exposure, as we see little immediate impetus for yields to move lower because of reduced expectations of future interest rates or inflation (Chart 16). We will continue to watch currency levels and credit growth as a sign that policymakers may need to shift their tone in the coming months. Bottom Line: Among the major countries without negative rate policies in effect (the US, UK, Canada and Australia), there is no evidence that longer-term borrowing rates need to fall further to boost credit growth, even in the midst of deep recessions. However, additional strength of the stubbornly resilient US dollar could be the deflationary shock that eventually forces the Fed into NIRP.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Negative Rates: Coming Soon To A Bond Market Near You? Negative Rates: Coming Soon To A Bond Market Near You? Footnotes 1 Our specification of the Taylor Rule uses unemployment rates relative to full employment (NAIRU) levels as the measure of spare capacity in the economies. For the neutral real interest rate, we use the New York Fed’s estimate of r-star for the US, Canada, the euro area and the UK; while using the OECD’s estimate of potential GDP growth as the neutral real rate measure for countries where we have no r-star estimate (Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and Australia).

Dear Client, With this weekly update on the Chinese economy, we are sending you a Special Report published by BCA Geopolitical Strategy team and authored by my colleague Matt Gertken. Lately we have been getting numerous questions from our clients, on the risk of a significant re-escalation in the US-China conflict. Matt’s report provides timely insights on the topic, and we trust you will find the report very helpful. Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist Feature An Update On The Chinese Economy Since mid-April, the speed of resumption in China’s domestic business activity has accelerated. Industrial enterprises appear to be operating at 87% of normal activity levels as of May 11, up from 81.8% one month ago. Small to medium-sized enterprise (SMEs) are estimated to now operate at 87.3% of their normal activity, a vast improvement from 82.3% just two weeks ago. Chart 1Pickup In M1 Still Modest Pickup In M1 Still Modest Pickup In M1 Still Modest The material easing in monetary conditions and strong flows of local government special-purpose bond issuance in the past two months helped jump start a recovery in the construction sector. But at this early stage of a domestic economic rebound and in the middle of a deep global economy recession, China’s corporate marginal propensity to invest remains muted (Chart 1). Household consumption showed some resilience during last week’s “Golden Week” holiday. The strength in big-ticket item purchases, however, was highly concentrated among consumers in China’s wealthiest urban areas (Chart 2). The COVID-19 pandemic has created a situation resembling a combination of SARS and the global financial crisis. Now the physical constraints on consumption have largely been lifted, consumers’ willingness to spend, after a brief period of compensatory spending, will be suppressed if their expectations of the medium-term job and income security remain pessimistic (Chart 3). Chart 2A Compensatory Rebound In Big-Ticket Item Sales A Compensatory Rebound In Big-Ticket Item Sales A Compensatory Rebound In Big-Ticket Item Sales Chart 3The Average Chinese Consumer Remains Cautious The Average Chinese Consumer Remains Cautious The Average Chinese Consumer Remains Cautious Next week we will publish a report, focusing on China’s consumption in a post-pandemic environment. Looking forward, we maintain the view that China’s business activity will pick up momentum in H2, when the massive monetary and fiscal stimuli continue working its way into the economy.  Downside risks to employment and income loom large, which makes it highly unlikely that the authorities will tighten their policy stance any time soon. As such, while we maintain our defensive tactical positioning due to near-term economic and geopolitical uncertainties, our view remains constructive on both the economy and Chinese financial asset prices in the next 6 to 12 months.  (Chart 4). Chart 4Recovery To Gain Traction In H2 Recovery To Gain Traction In H2 Recovery To Gain Traction In H2   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     #WWIII The phrase “World War III” or #WWIII went viral earlier this year in response to a skirmish between the US and Iran (Chart 1). Only four months later, the US and China are escalating a strategic rivalry that makes the Iran conflict look paltry by comparison (Chart 2). Chart 1US-Iran Tensions Were Just A Warm-Up #WWIII #WWIII Chart 2The Thucydides Trap The Thucydides Trap The Thucydides Trap Fortunately, the two great powers are constrained by the same mutually assured destruction that constrained the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They are also constrained by the desire to prevent their economies from collapsing further. Unfortunately, the intensity of their rivalry can escalate dramatically before reaching anything truly analogous to the Berlin Airlift or Cuban Missile Crisis – and these kinds of scenarios are not out of the question. Safe haven assets will catch a bid and the recovery in US and global risk assets since the COVID selloff will be halted. We maintain our defensive tactical positioning and will close two strategic trades to book profits and manage risk. In the wake of the pandemic and recession, geopolitics is the next shoe to drop. The War President Over the past 24 hours the White House has taken several steps indicating that President Trump is adopting the “war president” posture in the run-up to the US election: Export controls: Trump has gone forward with new export controls on “dual-purpose” technologies – those that have military as well as civilian applications, in a delayed reaction to China’s policy of civil-military technological fusion. The Commerce Department has wide leeway in whether to grant export licenses under the rule – but it is a consequential rule and would be disruptive if enforced strictly. Supply chain de-risking: Trump is also going forward with new restrictions on the import of foreign parts for US power plants and electricity grid. The purpose is to remove risks from critical US infrastructure. COVID investigation: Trump has hinted that the novel coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease may have originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Director of National Intelligence issued a statement indicating that the Intelligence Community does not view the virus as man-made (not a bio-weapon), but is investigating the potential that the virus transferred to humans at the institute. The State Department had flagged the institute for risky practices long before COVID. Trump avoided the bio-weapon conspiracy theory and is focused on the hypothesis that the laboratory’s investigations into rare coronaviruses led to the outbreak. New tariffs instead of reparations: Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow denied that the US would stop making interest and principal payments on some Chinese holdings of US treasuries. He said that the “full faith and credit of the United States’ debt obligation is sacrosanct. Absolutely sacrosanct.” Trump denied that this form of reparations, first floated by Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, was under consideration. Instead he suggested that new tariffs would be much more effective, raising the threat for the first time since the Phase One trade deal was agreed in principle in December. Strategic disputes: Tensions have flared up in specific, concrete ways across the range of US-Chinese relations – in the cyber-realm, psychological warfare, Korean peninsula, Taiwan Strait, and South China Sea. These could lead to sanctions. The war president posture is one in which President Trump recognizes that reelection is extremely unlikely in an environment of worse than -4.8% economic growth and likely 16% unemployment. Therefore he shifts the basis of his reelection to an ongoing crisis and appeals to Americans’ patriotism and desire for continuity amid crisis. Bottom Line: Protectionism is not guaranteed to work, and therefore it was not ultimately the path Trump took last year when he still believed a short-term trade deal could boost the economy. Now the bar to protectionism has been lowered. The Decline Of US-China Relations President Trump may still be bluffing, China may take a conciliatory posture, and a massive cold war-style escalation may be avoided. However, it is imprudent to buy risk assets on these reasons today, when the S&P 500’s forward price-to-earnings ratio stands at 20.15. It is more prudent to prepare for a historic escalation of tensions first, buy insurance, then reassess. Why? Because the trajectory of US-China relations is empirically worsening over time. US household deleveraging and the Chinese shift away from export-manufacturing (Chart 3) broke the basis of strong relations during the US’s distractions in Iraq and Afghanistan and China’s “peaceful rise” in the early 2000s. US consumers grew thriftier while Chinese wages rose. Not only has China sought economic self-sufficiency as a strategic objective since General Secretary Xi Jinping took power in 2012, but the Great Recession, Trump trade war, and global pandemic have accelerated the process of decoupling between the two economies. Decoupling is an empirical phenomenon, and it has momentum, however debatable its ultimate destination (Chart 4). Obviously policy at the moment is accelerating decoupling. Chart 3The Great Economic Divorce The Great Economic Divorce The Great Economic Divorce Chart 4Decoupling Is Empirical Decoupling Is Empirical Decoupling Is Empirical The US threat to cease payments on some of China’s Treasury holdings is an inversion of the fear that prevailed in the wake of 2008, that China would sell its treasuries to diversify away from dependence on the US and the greenback. China did end up selling its treasuries, but the US was not punished with higher interest rates because other buyers appeared. The US remains the world’s preponderant power and ultimate safe haven (Chart 5). By the same token, Trump and Kudlow naturally poured water on the threat of arbitrarily stopping payments because that would jeopardize America’s position. Instead Trump is threatening a new round of trade tariffs. Since the US runs a large trade deficit with China, and China is more exposed to trade generally, the US has the upper hand on this front. But it is important to notice that US tariff collections as a share of imports bottomed under President Obama (Chart 6). Chart 5Treasuries Can't Be Weaponized By Either Side... Treasuries Can't Be Weaponized By Either Side... Treasuries Can't Be Weaponized By Either Side... Chart 6... But Tariffs Can And Will Be ... But Tariffs Can And Will Be ... But Tariffs Can And Will Be   The US shift away from free trade toward protectionism occurred in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. President Trump then popularized and accelerated this policy option in an aggressive and unorthodox way. Trade tariffs are a tool of American statecraft, not the whim of a single person, who may exit the White House in January 2021 anyway. The retreat from globalization is not a passing fancy. Today’s recession also marks the official conclusion of China’s historic 44 year economic boom – and hence a concrete blow to the legitimacy of the ruling Communist Party (Chart 7). The more insular, autarkic shift in the Communist Party’s thinking is not irreversible, but there are no clear signs that Xi Jinping is pivoting toward liberalism after eight years in power. Chart 7Recession Destabilizes The 'G2' Powers Recession Destabilizes The 'G2' Powers Recession Destabilizes The 'G2' Powers China’s unemployment rate has been estimated as high as 20.5% by Zhongtai Securities, which then retracted the estimate (!). It is at least at 10%. Moreover 51 million migrant workers vanished from the job rolls in the first quarter of the year. Maximum employment is the imperative of East Asian governments, especially the Communist Party, which has not dealt with joblessness since the late 1990s. The threat to social and political stability is obvious. The party will take extraordinary measures to maintain stability – not only massive stimulus but also social repression and foreign policy distraction to ensure that people rally around the flag. Xi Jinping has tried to shift the legitimacy of the party from economic growth to nationalism and consumerism, the “China Dream.” But the transition to consumer growth was supposed to be smooth. Financial turmoil, the trade war, and now pandemic and recession have forced the Communist Party off the training wheels well before it intended. Xi’s communist ideology, economic mercantilism, and assertive foreign policy have created an international backlash. The US is obviously indulging in nationalism as well. A stark increase in inequality and political polarization exploded in President Trump’s surprise election on a nationalist and protectionist platform in 2016 (Chart 8). All candidates bashed China on the campaign trail, but Trump was an anti-establishment leader who disrupted corporate interests and followed through with his tariff threats. The result is that the share of Americans who see China’s power and influence as a “major threat” to the United States has grown from around 50% during the halcyon days of cooperation to over 60% today. Those who see it as a minor threat have shrunk to about a quarter of the population (Chart 9). Chart 8A Measure Of Inequality In The US A Measure Of Inequality In The US A Measure Of Inequality In The US Chart 9US Nationalism On The Rise #WWIII #WWIII Chart 10Broad-Based Anti-China Sentiment In US #WWIII #WWIII As with US tariff policy, the bipartisan nature of US anger toward China is significant. More than 60% of Democrats and more than 50% of young people have an unfavorable view of China. College graduates have a more negative opinion than the much-discussed non-college-educated populace (Chart 10). Already it is clear, in Joe Biden’s attack ads against Trump, that this election is about who can sound tougher on China. The debate is over who has the better policy to put “America first,” not whether to put America first. Biden will try to steal back the protectionist thunder that enabled Trump to break the blue wall in the electorally pivotal Rust Belt in 2016 (Map 1). Biden will have to win over these voters by convincing them that he understands and empathizes with their Trumpian outlook on jobs, outsourcing, and China’s threats to national security. He will emphasize other crimes – carbon emissions, cyber attacks, human rights violations – but they will still be China’s crimes. He will return to the “Pivot to Asia” foreign policy of his most popular supporter, former President Barack Obama. Map 1US Election: Civil War Lite #WWIII #WWIII Bottom Line: Economic slowdown and autocracy in China, unprecedented since the Cultural Revolution, is clashing with the United States. Broad social restlessness in the US that is resolving into bipartisan nationalism against a peer competitor, unprecedented since the struggle with the Soviets in the 1960s, is clashing with China. Now is not the time to assume global stability. Constraints Still Operate, But Buy Insurance The story outlined above is by this time pretty well known. But the “Phase One” trade deal allowed global investors to set aside this secular story at the beginning of the year. Now, as Trump threatens tariffs again, the question is whether he will resort to sweeping, concrete, punitive measures against China that will take on global significance – i.e. that will drive the financial markets this year. Trump is still attempting to restore his bull market and magnificent economy. As long as this is the case, a constraint on conflict operates this year. It is just not as firm or predictable. Therefore we are looking for three things. First, will President Trump’s approval rating benefit so much from his pressure tactics on China that he finds himself driven into greater pressure tactics? This raises the risk of policy mistakes. Second, will Trump’s approval rating fall into the doldrums, stuck beneath 43%, as the toll of the recession wears on him and popular support during the health crisis fades? “Lame duck” status would essentially condemn him to electoral loss and incentivize him to turn the tables by escalating the conflict with China. Chart 11Trump May Seek A Crisis ‘Bounce’ To Popularity #WWIII #WWIII Presidents are not very popular these days, but a comparison with Trump’s two predecessors shows that while he can hardly obtain the popularity boost that Obama received just before the 2012 election, he could hope for something at least comparable to what George W. Bush received amid the invasion of Iraq (Chart 11). (Trump has generally been capped at 46% approval, the same as his share of the popular vote in 2016.) The reason this is a real risk, not a Shakespearean play, is outlined above: however cynical Trump’s political calculus, he would be reasserting US grand strategy in the face of a great power that is attempting to set up a regional empire from which, eventually, to mount a global challenge. Thus if he is convinced he cannot win the election anyway, this risk becomes material. Investors should take seriously any credible reports suggesting that Trump is growing increasingly frustrated with his trailing Biden in head-to-head polls in the swing states. Third, will China, under historic internal stress, react in a hostile way that drives Trump down the path of confrontation? China has so far resorted to propaganda, aircraft carrier drills around the island of Taiwan, and maritime encroachments in the South China Sea – none of which is intolerably provocative to Trump. A depreciation of the renminbi, a substantial change to the status quo in the East or South China Seas, or an attempt to vitiate US security guarantees regarding US allies in the region, could trigger a major geopolitical incident. A fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is fully within the realm of possibility, especially given that Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield” is fundamentally at stake. While we dismissed rumors of Kim Jong Un’s death in North Korea, any power vacuum or struggle for influence there is of great consequence in today’s geopolitical context. Aggressive use of tariffs always threatened to disrupt global trade and financial markets, but tariffs function differently in the context of a global economic expansion and bull market, as in 2018-19, than they do in the context of a deep and possibly protracted recession. Trump has a clear political incentive to be tough on China, but an equally clear financial and economic incentive to limit sweeping punitive measures and avoid devastating the stock market and economy. If events lower the economic hurdle, then the political incentive will prevail and financial markets will sell. Bottom Line: However small the risk of Trump enacting sweeping tariffs, the downside is larger than in the 2018-19 period. The stock market might fall by 40%-50% rather than 20% in an all-out trade war this year. Investment Takeaways Go tactically long US 10-year treasuries. Book a 9.7% profit on our long 30-year US TIPS trade. Close long global equities (relative to US) for a loss of 3.8%.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. Feature The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart II-1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23rd, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart II-1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures May 2020 May 2020 Chart II-1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Instead, Chart II-2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.8 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart II-2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures May 2020 May 2020 Analysis by Bruegel provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table II-1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table II-1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries May 2020 May 2020 Table II-1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Chart II-3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.2 Chart II-3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart II-3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not May 2020 May 2020 Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts II-1 – II-3 and Table II-1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart II-4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart II-4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart II-4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect May 2020 May 2020 The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart II-5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). Chart II-5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects May 2020 May 2020 The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart II-5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables II-2 and II-3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. Table II-2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions May 2020 May 2020 Table II-3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound May 2020 May 2020 The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables II-2 and II-3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table II-2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Second, Table II-3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box II-1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box II-1 The “Bucket” Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The IMF “bucket” approach to estimating fiscal multiplier involves determining the multiplier that is likely to apply to a given country during “normal” circumstances, based on a set of structural characteristics associated with larger multipliers. This “normal” multiplier is then adjusted based on the following formula: M = MNT * (1+Cycle) * (1+Mon) Where M is the final multiplier estimate, MNT is the “normal times” multiplier derived from structural characteristics, Cycle is the cyclical factor ranging from −0.4 to +0.6, and Mon is the monetary policy stance factor ranging from 0 to 0.3. The Cycle factor is higher the more a country’s output gap is negative, and the Mon factor is higher the closer the economy is to the zero lower bound. Table II-B1 applies the IMF’s approach to the US, using the same structural score as the IMF presented in the note that described the approach. The table highlights that the approach suggests a US fiscal multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 given the maximum cycle adjustment proscribed by the rule, which we feel is reasonable given the unprecedented rise in US unemployment. We make no adjustment to the range for the zero lower bound. Table II-B1A Multiplier Estimate Of 1.1 – 1.6 Seems Reasonable For The US May 2020 May 2020 The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts II-1 - II-3 on pages 28-31. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. Chart II-6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses May 2020 May 2020 For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart II-6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart II-6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table II-4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance. The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments. Table II-4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs May 2020 May 2020 Firms: On April 16th the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured. However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table II-5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The Table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. Table II-5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income May 2020 May 2020 Chart II-7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response. The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30th when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent. Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart II-7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.3 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart II-8 reproduces Chart II-3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart II-8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart II-8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Chart II-8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany May 2020 May 2020 Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table II-6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.4 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table II-6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave May 2020 May 2020 The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31st or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table II-6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart II-9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart II-9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State May 2020 May 2020 Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart II-10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart II-10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart II-11). Chart II-11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort May 2020 May 2020 Chart II-12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart II-12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Chart II-13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Third, Chart II-13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports Footnotes 1  Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 2  Please note that Chart II-3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 3 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, www.bcaresearch.com. 4 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.

Dear Client, This week, in lieu of our regular report, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan discusses the global fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and provides some perspective on whether the response will be enough to prevent an "L-shaped" economic outcome. I hope you find the report insightful. Last Friday, I participated in a webcast with my fellow BCA Strategists Caroline Miller and Arthur Budaghyan where we discussed the outlook for developed and emerging market equities over the immediate (0-3 month) and cyclical (12 month) horizon. You can access a replay of the webcast here. Please note we will be sending out our regular weekly report next week. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. Feature The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart 1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart 1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Chart 1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Instead, Chart 2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.1 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart 2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Analysis by Bruegel, provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table 1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table 1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Table 1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Chart 3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.2Chart 3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart 3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts 1 – 3 and Table 1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart 4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart 4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart 4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart 5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart 5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Chart 5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables 2 and 3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables 2 and 3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table 2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Table 2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Table 3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Second, Table 3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box 1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box 1The 'Bucket' Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts 1 - 3 on pages 3-5. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. Chart 6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart 6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart 6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table 4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance.   Table 4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments.   Firms: On April 16 the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured.   Table 5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table 5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response.  The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30 when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent.   Chart 7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart 7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.3 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart 8 reproduces Chart 3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart 8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. Chart 8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart 8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table 6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.4 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table 6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31 or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table 6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart 9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart 9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart 10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart 10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart 11). Chart 11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart 12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Third, Chart 13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. Chart 12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Chart 13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged   So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 2 Please note that Chart 3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 3 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Current MacroQuant Model Scores The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough?