Economic Growth

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 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 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 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 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 Chart 5Fiscal Deficit Largest In Decades Chart 6"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 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

Special Report

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 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 Chart 3NIRP 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 … Chart 5… But Rates Are Appropriate Here Chart 6The 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 Chart 8Japan's Negative Rates Experience Chart 9Sweden'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 Chart 11Negative 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 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 Chart 14Could 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" Chart 16Too 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 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).

Special Report

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 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 Chart 3The 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   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 Chart 2The 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 Chart 4Decoupling 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... Chart 6... 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 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 Chart 9US Nationalism On The Rise Chart 10Broad-Based Anti-China Sentiment In US 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 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 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

Special Report

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Table II-3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound 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 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 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 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 Chart II-7Persistent 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 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 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 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 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 Chart II-12Italy'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 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.

Special Report

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Table 3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Chart 13Italy'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 Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Highlights Uncertainty over the duration of lockdowns globally will continue to hamper the estimation of the global demand recovery for commodities. This uncertainty will continue to fuel safe-haven demand for USD for the balance of 2Q20. In addition, markets continue to experience a shortage of USD, which can become acute for EM debtors servicing dollar-denominated debt. The combination of safe-haven demand and a continued dollar shortage will keep the USD well bid, which will, at the margin, suppress commodity demand, compounding the effects of COVID-19-induced demand destruction. The Fed will continue to accommodate USD demand, in an ongoing attempt to reverse a tightening of global financial conditions, which also reduces the level of economic activity and commodity demand. Commodity demand will recover in 2H20. Given the expected earlier recovery of China from the COVID-19-induced commodity-demand destruction – and the fiscal and monetary stimulus being deployed by the Communist Party of China (CCP) – base metals and grain prices should recover earlier than other commodities.  Oil likely recovers in 3Q20, as the COVID-19 pandemic is contained and supply cuts – voluntary and involuntary – take hold. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge against continued global policy uncertainty. Feature The short-term path forward for commodity prices will be a function of uncertainty regarding the global economic recovery and its impact on the US dollar, which, at present, remains well bid and is keeping global financial conditions tight. The sharp USD appreciation – mostly vs. EM currencies – is a response to the COVID-19 economic shock, which intensified in March. This significantly tightened global financial conditions (Chart of the Week). EM economies’ capacity to withstand the hit to aggregate demand locally – caused by widespread lockdown measures meant to contain the spread of the virus – has led to capital outflows. EM economies, therefore, are forced to combat a combination of plunging currencies, crumpling domestic and export demand, and increasing financing costs. Low risk appetite globally and diminished liquidity in money and credit markets add to USD demand, and will keep it elevated over the next few months. Chart of the WeekEM Currencies Plunged Vs. The USD Chart 2Commodity-Intensive Industries Are Vulnerable To USD Shocks After that, we expect the dollar will reverse – mostly on the back of massive Fed accommodation to redress these factors – in 2H20. As COVID-19-induced demand destruction abates, this weakening in the USD will propel EM economic growth higher and bolster commodity demand (Chart 2). USD Well Bid On Safe-Haven Demand, Dollar Shortage The dollar could retest its recent highs in the short term. Heightened volatility over the past two months powered a surge in demand for safe havens and highly liquid risk assets globally. We expect this to persist as stringent lockdowns remain in place to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. This will keep economic policy uncertainty elevated. Over the short term, the USD will benefit in this environment. Demand for USD and dollar-denominated assets will remain strong. Indeed, our FX strategists believe the dollar could retest its recent highs (Chart 3).1 Chart 3Global Uncertainty Lifts The US Dollar And Rates Since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), US dollar movements have been a prime driver of cross-currency basis swaps and can be indicative of risk-taking capacity in capital markets.2 Also, a rising dollar limits the cross-border supply of dollar-denominated loans and increases funding costs. The Fed is monitoring domestic and global liquidity conditions closely, and is fulfilling the role of global USD lender of last resort. Its rapid extension of swap lines to foreign central banks, as well as a temporary repo facility for foreign and international monetary authorities (FIMA), temporarily eased liquidity concerns in some regions (Chart 4). Chart 4Fed Actions Have Eased Global Liquidity Constraints   It is too early to presume the dollar liquidity constraints have been wholly contained. However, it is too early to presume the dollar liquidity constraints have been wholly contained. The Fed cannot force foreign central banks to direct these dollars to the sectors in which they are needed in their domestic economies. Besides, not all EMs have access to these swap lines. This means much-needed swap lines are inaccessible to a significant portion of the global financial system. In addition, close to 60% of outstanding foreign exchange swaps/forwards involve non-bank financial and other institutions.3 It is highly likely, therefore, the Fed will have to provide additional liquidity to struggling foreign entities. We believe the Fed is well aware of these constraints on global growth and is addressing the need for additional global USD liquidity. However, as has been the case throughout the post-GFC period, policy action will continue to be uncertain as to its duration and its effectiveness. Combined with expanding fiscal deficits in the US, we believe this extraordinary accommodation by the Fed will considerably increase USD supply this year. Following a volatile 2Q20, we expect the US dollar will face severe downward pressures – assuming lockdown measures are successful in containing the pandemic and are gradually lifted. With interest rates now close to zero in most DM economies, relative balance-sheet dynamics will become important drivers of exchange rates (Chart 5). Ample liquidity globally will propel pro-cyclical currencies up and the combination of fiscal and monetary easing could lead to a debasing of the dollar next year as inflationary pressures intensify. Momentum will start working against the dollar in 2H20. Chart 5Massive QE In The US Will Pressure The USD Downward USD Strength Hinders Global Growth The dollar’s importance as a driver of EM – and global – industrial production cycles has increased and, because EM economies account for a larger share of aggregate commodity demand, its link with commodity prices also has strengthened. The strong dollar remains a headwind to global growth – particularly in EM economies – as it pushes up funding costs and tightens financial conditions. This negative dollar shock adds to the devastating effects of lockdowns, record portfolio outflows, and collapsing commodity prices on EM economies (Chart 6). Since the GFC, the dollar’s importance as a driver of EM – and global – industrial production cycles has increased and, because EM economies account for a larger share of aggregate commodity demand, its link with commodity prices also has strengthened (Chart 7). EM economies’ rising responsiveness to dollar movements is in part explained by their growing share of foreign USD-denominated debt, a larger foreign ownership of their sovereign debt, and increasing integration into global supply chains, in which transactions typically are invoiced in dollars (Chart 8). Chart 6Record Portfolio Outflows From EM   Chart 7Brent Prices Are Closely Correlated With EM Currencies Post-GFC Chart 8EM Vulnerability To The USD Increased Since The GFC Elevated economic uncertainty – which drives up the dollar convenience yield and reduces cross-border dollar lending – pushes up the dollar and tightens financial conditions globally, and ultimately spills over to the real economy. Thus, elevated economic uncertainty – which drives up the dollar convenience yield and reduces cross-border dollar lending – pushes up the dollar and tightens financial conditions globally, and ultimately spills over to the real economy. Interestingly, this relationship is non-linear and asymmetric – i.e. the dollar’s impact on commodity prices is higher in dollar bull markets, and positive dollar changes have a greater impact. For instance, its impact on oil prices is 30% stronger in dollar-appreciation cycles. Large increases in the relative value of the USD – on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis – have a disproportionate negative impact on oil prices compared to large decreases (Chart 9). Hence, sudden rushes to safe and liquid assets in periods of rising global economic uncertainty have a magnified negative effect on commodity prices. This means the recovery in commodity prices will be more gradual. Chart 9Asymmetric Impact Of USD Changes On Commodity Prices Base Metals Could Recover In 2Q20 Gold will benefit from the continued uncertainty and system-wide risk aversion over the coming months. The USD strength is keeping commodity demand growth in check. Until uncertainty re the speed of economic recovery dissipates – mainly vis-à-vis EM economies – commodity prices will remain under pressure (Chart 10). Base metals and grain prices could recover earlier than other commodities given the expected earlier recovery of China from the COVID-19-induced commodity-demand destruction – and the fiscal and monetary stimulus being deployed by the CCP. Specifically, copper prices could decouple from the USD, following China’s economic growth as it contributes close to 50% of both supply and demand of refined copper (Chart 11). Chart 10USD Strength Will Weigh Down Commodity Prices In 2Q20 Chart 11Metals' Prices Will React To China's Economic Recovery Oil will rebound in 3Q20 as the COVID-19 pandemic is contained and supply cuts – voluntary and involuntary – take hold. China consumes a smaller 14% of world oil demand, which is not sufficient to support a sustainable rally in prices on its own. For 2Q20, the correlation with the USD will intensify and weigh down its price (Chart 12). Lastly, gold will benefit from the continued uncertainty and system-wide risk aversion over the coming months. Bottom Line: As the global economy recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic and things get back to normal in 2H20, the USD will weaken and commodity prices will rebound. These two factors will halt the deflationary impulse from the COVID-19 demand shock. On the back of this improvement, we expect inflation expectations to recover throughout 2021 (Chart 13). Chart 12Oil Prices' Correlation With The USD Increases In Contango Chart 13Weaker USD, Rising Commodity Prices Will Revive Inflation Expectations   Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Oil price volatility as measured by the Crude Oil ETF Volatility Index (OVX) surged to above 300% earlier this week as WTI futures for May 2020 delivery fell to a low of -$40.40/bbl (Chart 14). Unprecedented negative pricing for the North American benchmark crude oil will accelerate supply destruction and bankruptcies among highly levered, unprofitable E+P companies operating in the principal shale basins, particularly the Permian. We will be looking at the supply-side implications of the massive price volatility, coupled with the first-ever negative pricing for the benchmark crude oil in next week’s publication. We currently expect US production to fall 1.5mm b/d this year. Base Metals: Neutral Front month Singapore Iron Ore Futures continue to perform relatively well, with the 62% Fines contracts hovering around $83/MT. This contract is down 5.3% ytd, after having peaked in January at $92/MT. Chinese steel inventories while elevated, have started to turn the corner since Mid-March when they reached a record 26 Mn MT (Chart 15). Resilience in iron ore and steel reflects favorable fundamentals, as Chinese manufactures starting to get back to business are reviving demand in China, and as supply concerns stemming from reduced mine activity among major mining groups around the world persist. Precious Metals: Neutral We are going long palladium at tonight’s close, following its break below $2,000/oz. We expect the global economy to recover in 2H20 on the back of massive fiscal and monetary stimulus. We expect this will be supportive of consumer spending, particularly automobiles. Palladium is essential to pollution-abatement technology in gasoline-powered cars. While work is being undertaken to rehabilitate South Africa’s derelict power grid, this is at least a five-year effort. In the meantime, rolling backouts will continue to threaten the 73% of global palladium supply produced in South Africa. Ags/Softs:  Underweight CBOT corn May futures fell 1.55% on Tuesday, closing at $3.09/bu, the lowest level since 2009. Corn has been under pressure in recent weeks as the COVID-19 pandemic caused large demand destruction for this grain. Initially, this stemmed from a lower ethanol demand. However, concerns over a slowdown in demand for cattle feed has impacted corn demand as meat plants close in North America. Chart 14Crude Oil ETF Volatility Index Surged Over 300% Chart 15Chinese Steel Inventories Have Turned The Corner     Footnotes 1     Please see QE And Currencies, published by BCA Research’s Foreign Exchange Strategy April 17, 2020. It is available at fes.bcareserach.com. 2     Please see Avdjiev, Stefan, Wenxin Du, Cathérine Koch, and Hyun Song Shin. 2019. "The Dollar, Bank Leverage, and Deviations from Covered Interest Parity." American Economic Review: Insights, 1 (2): 193-208. 3     Please see Capitulation?, published by BCA Research’s Foreign Exchange Strategy April 3, 2020. It is available at fes.bcareserach.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2019 Q4 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights The Chinese economy is recovering at a slower rate than the equity market has priced in. There is a high likelihood of negative revisions to Q2 EPS estimates and an elevated risk of a near-term price correction in Chinese stocks.  We expect a meaningful pickup in credit growth in H1 to improve domestic demand gain tractions in H2. This supports our overweight stance on Chinese stocks in the next 6-12 months, in both absolute and relative terms. There is still a strong probability that the yield curve will flatten, and the 10-year government bond yield may even dip below 2% in the wake of disappointing economic data in Q2. But our baseline scenario suggests the 10-year government bond yield should bottom no later than Q3 of this year. Feature This week’s report addresses pressing concerns from clients in China’s post-Covid-19 environment. China’s economy contracted by 6.8% in Q1, the largest GDP growth slump since 1976. Furthermore, the IMF’s baseline scenario projects a 3% contraction in global economic growth in 2020, with the Chinese economy growing at a mere 1.2%.1 This dim annual growth outlook means that the contraction in China’s economy will likely extend to Q2, dragging down corporate profit growth. In our April 1st report2 we recommended that investors maintain a neutral stance on Chinese stocks in the next three months due to uncertainties surrounding the pandemic, the oversized passive outperformance in Chinese stocks, and heightened risks for further risk-asset selloffs. On a 6- to 12-month horizon, however, we have a higher conviction that Chinese stocks will outperform global benchmarks. Our view is based on a decisive shift by policymakers to a “whatever it takes” approach to boost the economy. We believe that the speed of China’s economic recovery in the second half of 2020 will outpace other major economies.  Q: China’s economy is recovering ahead of other major economies. Why did you recently downgrade your tactical call on Chinese equities from overweight to neutral relative to global stocks? A: China’s economy is recovering, but it is recovering at a slower rate than the equity market has fully priced in (Chart 1A and 1B). We believe the likelihood of negative revisions to Q2 EPS estimates is high, and the risk of a near-term price correction in Chinese stocks remains elevated.  Chart 1AElevated Chinese Equity Outperformance Relative To Global Stocks Chart 1BChinese Stocks Largely Ignored Weakness In Domestic Economy The lackluster March data suggests that the pace of China’s economic recovery in April and even May will likely disappoint, weighing on the growth prospects for Q2’s corporate earnings (Chart 2). Chart 2EPS Growth Estimates Likely To Capitulate In Q2 The work resumption rate in China’s 36 provinces jumped sharply between mid-February and mid-March. However, since that time, the resumption rate among large enterprises has hovered around 80% of normal capacity (Chart 3). Chart 3Work Resumption Hardly Improved Since Mid-March The flattening of the work resumption rate curve is due to a lack of strong recovery in demand. Chart 4So Far No Strong Recovery In Domestic Demand The flattening of the resumption rate curve is due to a lack of strong recovery in demand. Although there was a surge in Chinese imports in crude oil and raw materials, the increase was the result of China taking advantage of low commodity prices. This surge cannot be sustained without a pickup in domestic demand. The March bounce back in domestic demand from the manufacturing, construction, and household sectors has all been lackluster (Chart 4). External demand, which growth remained in contraction through March, will likely worsen in Q2 (Chart 5). Exports shrunk by 6.6% in March, up from a deep contraction of 17.2% in January-February. Export orders can take more than a month to be processed, therefore, March’s data reflects pent-up orders from the first two months of the year. The US and European economies started their lockdowns in March, so Chinese exports will only feel the full impact of the collapse in demand from its trading partners in April and May. The work resumption rate will advance only if the momentum in domestic demand recovery increases to fully offset the collapse in external demand. The current 83% rate of work resumption implies that industrial output growth in April will remain in contraction on a year-over-year basis (Chart 6). Chart 5External Demand Will Worsen In Q2 Chart 6Will Q2 Industrial Output Growth Remain In Contraction? Although we maintain a constructive outlook on Chinese risk assets in the next 6 to 12 months, the short-term picture remains volatile in view of the emerging economic data. As such, we recommend investors to maintain short-term hedges for risk asset positions. Q: China’s policy response to mitigate the economic blow from COVID-19 has been noticeably smaller than programs rolled out in key developed economies, especially the US. Why do you think such measured stimulus from China warrants an overweight stance on Chinese stocks in the next 6-12 months relative to global benchmarks? A: It is true that the size of existing Chinese stimulus, as a percentage of the Chinese economy, is smaller than that has been announced in the US. But this is due to a different approach China is taking in stimulating its economy. In addition, both the recent policy rhetoric and PBoC actions suggest a large credit expansion is in the works. This will likely overcompensate the damage on China’s aggregate economy, and generate an outperformance in both Chinese economic growth and returns on Chinese risk assets in the next 6 to 12 months. China’s policy responses have an overarching focus on stimulating new demand and investment, which is a different approach from the programs offered by its Western counterparts. In the US, the combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus amounts to 11% of GDP as of April 16, with almost all policy support targeted at keeping companies and individuals afloat. In comparison, China’s policy response accounts for a mere 1.2% of its GDP.3  However, this direct comparison understates the enormous firepower in the Chinese stimulus toolkit, specifically a credit boom. As noted in our February 26 report,4 China has largely resorted to its “old economic playbook” by generating a huge credit wave to ride out the economic turmoil. Our prediction of the policy shift towards a significant escalation in stimulus was confirmed at the March 27 Politburo meeting. Moreover, the April 17 Politburo meeting reinforced a “whatever it takes” policy shift with direct calls on more forceful central bank policy actions, a first since the global financial crisis in 2008.5 Since 2008, the overnight repo rate’s breaking into the IORR-IOER corridor has been a reliable indicator leading to impressive credit upcycles. The PBoC’s recent aggressive easing measures have pushed down the interbank repo rate below the central bank’s interest rate on required reserves (IORR). The price for interbank borrowing is now near the lower range of the rate corridor, between the IORR and the interest rate on excess reserves (IOER).  Since 2008, the overnight repo rate’s breaking into the IORR-IOER corridor has been a reliable indicator leading to impressive credit upcycles (Chart 7).  Such credit super cycles, in turn, have led to both economic booms and an outperformance in Chinese stocks. Chart 7Another Credit Super Cycle Is In The Works Chart 8Financial Conditions Were Extremely Tight In 2011-2014 The 2012-2015 cycle was an exception to the relationship between the overnight interbank repo rate, credit growth and Chinese stock performance. A steep pickup in credit growth in 2012 coincided with a leap in the overnight interbank repo rate, and the credit boom did not help boost demand in the real economy or improve Chinese stock performance. This is because corporate borrowing was severely curtailed by high lending rates during a four-year monetary tightening cycle from 2011 to 2014 (Chart 8). The credit boom during that cycle was largely driven by explosive growth in short-term shadow-bank lending and wealth management products (WMP), and did not channel into the real economy.6 We do not think such an extreme phenomena will replay under the current circumstances. Monetary stance will likely remain tremendously accommodative through the end of the year to facilitate a continuous rollout of medium- to long-term bank loans and local government bonds. Chinese financial institutions’ “animal spirits” may have been unleashed. But under the scrutiny of the Macro-Prudential Assessment Framework and the New Asset Management Rules,7 the "animal spirits" are unlikely to run up enough risks to prompt the PBoC to prematurely tighten liquidity conditions in the interbank market. Marginal propensity in China is pro-cyclical, which tends to lag credit cycles by 6 months. Chart 9Marginal Propensity In China Is Pro-Cyclical Both corporate and household marginal propensity, a measure of the willingness to spend, will pick up as well. Marginal propensity is pro-cyclical, which tends to lag credit cycles by 6 months (Chart 9). In other words, when interest rates are low and credit growth improves, corporates and households tend to spend more.  The meaningful expansion in credit growth, which started in Q1 and will sustain in the coming two to three quarters, will help corporate and household spending gain tractions in H2. This constructive view on Chinese stimulus and economic recovery supports our overweight stance on Chinese stocks in the next 6-12 months, in both absolute and relative terms.  Q: The yield curve in Chinese government bonds has steepened following PBoC’s aggressive monetary easing announcements. Has the Chinese 10-year bond yield bottomed?   A: No, we do not think the 10-year bond yield has bottomed. There is probability the 10-year government bond yield may briefly dip below 2% in Q2. However, barring a multi-year global economic recession, we think the 10-year government bond yield will bottom no later than Q3 this year. Chart 10A Wide Gap Between The Long and Short The short end of the yield curve dropped disproportionally compared with the long end, following the PBoC’s announcement to place its first IOER cut since 2008 (Chart 10). This led to a rapid steepening in the yield curve. While our view supports a flattening of the yield curve in Q2 and even a 50bps drop in the 10-year government bond yield, we think that the capitulation will be brief. In order for the 10-year government bond yield to remain below 2% for an extended period of time, the market needs to believe one or more of the following will happen: The pandemic will cause a multi-year global economic recession, preventing the PBoC from normalizing its policy stance in the foreseeable future. The duration and depth of the economic impact from the pandemic are still moving targets. Our baseline scenario suggests that the Chinese economic recovery will pick up momentum in H2 this year. The PBoC will not normalize its policy stance even when the economy has stabilized. The PBoC has a track record as a reactive central bank rather than a proactive one. Still, during each of the past three economic and credit cycles, the PBoC has started to normalize its interest rate on average nine months following a bottom in the business cycle (Chart 11). The tightening of interest rate even applied to the prolonged economic downturn and deep deflationary cycle in 2015/16 (Chart 12).    Chart 11The 'Old Faithful' PBoC Policy Normalization Pattern Chart 12Policy Normalized Even After A Long Economic Downturn Chart 132008 Or 2015? How the yield curve has historically behaved also depended on the market’s expectations on the speed of the economic recovery, and the timing of the subsequent monetary policy normalization. The yield curved spiked in the wake of substantial monetary easing and pickup in credit growth, in both 2008 and 2015 (Chart 13). While in 2008 the yield curve moved in lockstep with the 3-month SHIBOR with a perfect reverse correlation, in the 2015/16 cycle the yield curve spiked initially but quickly flattened. The long end of the yield curve capitulated as soon as the market realized the economic slowdown was a prolonged one. The 10-year government bond yield, after trending sideways in early 2016, only truly bottomed after the nominal output growth troughed in Q1 2016 (Chart 13, bottom panel). Will the yield curve behave like in 2008, or more like in 2015 in this cycle? We think it will be somewhere in between. The current economic cycle bottomed in Q1, but the economy is only recovering slowly and we expect a U-shaped economic recovery rather than a 2008-style V-shaped one.  At the same time, our baseline scenario does not suggest the current environment will evolve into a 4-year deflationary cycle as in the 2012-2016 period. Therefore, we expect the low interest rate environment to endure for another two to three quarters before the PBoC starts to reverse its policy stance back to the pre-COVID-19 range. As such, the yield on 10-year government bonds will fall, possibly by as much as 50bps, when the economic data disappoint in Q2 and more rate cuts are forthcoming.  But it will bottom when the economic recovery starts to gain traction in H22020 and the market starts to price in a subsequent monetary policy normalization.  When growth slows and debt rises sharply, the PBoC will need to join its western counterparts to permanently maintain an ultra-low interest rate policy to accommodate its high debt level. We acknowledge the fact that China’s potential output growth is trending down (Chart 14).  But it has been trending downwards since 2011. A structurally slowing rate of economic growth has not prevented the PBoC from cyclically raising its policy rate. Hence, unless we see evidence that the pandemic is meaningfully lowering China’s potential growth on par with growth rates in the DMs, our baseline scenario does not support a structural ultra-low interest rate environment in China. China’s debt-to-GDP ratio will most likely rise substantially this year, given that the credit impulse will gain momentum and GDP will grow very modestly. However, this rapid rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio will most likely not be sustained beyond this year. Even if we assume that credit impulse will account for 40% of GDP in 2020 (the same magnitude as in 2008/09), a sharp reversal in the output gap in 2021, as predicted by IMF,8 will flatten the debt-to-GDP ratio curve (Chart 15).  Moreover, following every credit super cycle in the past, Chinese authorities have put a brake on the debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart 14China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... Chart 15...But Has Not Stopped PBoC From Flattening The Debt Curve   All in all, while we see a high possibility for the 10-year government bond yield to fall in Q2, the decline will be limited in terms of duration. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1IMF World Economic Outlook, April 2020 2Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing During A Global Pandemic," dated April 1, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3IMF, Policy Responses To COVID-19 https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19#U 4Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook?" dated February 26, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5“Stable monetary policy must become more flexible” and “use RRR reductions, lower interest rates, re-lending and other measures to preserve adequate liquidity and guide the loan prime rate downwards.” Statements from Xi Jinping, April 17, 2020 Politburo Meeting. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2020-04/17/content_5503621.htm  6 Bankers’ acceptances - short-term debt instruments guaranteed by commercial banks - swelled by 887% between end-2008 and 2012. The outstanding amount of WMPs jumped from 1.7 trillion RMB in 2009 to more than 9 trillion RMB by H12013. In contrast, the amount of RMB-denominated bank loans increased by only 67% during the same period. 7The Macro-Prudential Assessment Framework and the New Asset Management Rules were implemented in 2016 and 2018, respectively. They are designed to create additional restrictions to curb shadow-bank lending and broaden the PBoC’s oversight on banks’ WMP holdings. 8The April IMF World Economic Outlook predicts a 1.2% Chinese GDP growth in 2020 and a 9.2% GDP growth in 2021. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Making predictions about the economic and market outlook seems a futile exercise in the midst of such massive uncertainty. The deluge of articles about COVID-19 merely serves to highlight that nobody really knows how things will play out in the year ahead. Much depends on whether an effective vaccine or treatment becomes available within a reasonable timescale and that remains an open question. Social and economic disruption will continue to intensify until the spread of the virus starts to abate. One thing is certain. Economic activity around the world faces its biggest contraction in modern times. Declines in second quarter GDP will be mind-numbingly bad in a wide range of countries, especially those that have instituted lockdowns and the closure of non-essential businesses. According to the OECD, the median economy faces an initial output decline of around 25% as a result of shutdowns and restrictions.1 Chart 1A Meltdown In Economic Activity Estimates for the drop in US real GDP in the second quarter range as high as 50% at an annual rate. To put this into perspective, the peak-to-trough decline in US real GDP in the 2007-09 recession was a mere 4% over six quarters, and that felt catastrophic at the time. The New York Fed’s weekly economic index2 has already fallen to the lows of 2008 and worse is still to come (Chart 1). Could things be as bad as the 1930s Great Depression when US real GDP contracted by 25% over a three-year period? That would require an extreme apocalyptic view about the progression of the virus and does not bear thinking about. I am not that gloomy. Policymakers are acting aggressively to limit the economic damage. Central banks are flooding the system with liquidity and the cost of money is negligible. Meanwhile, fiscal caution has been thrown to the wind with massive government stimulus in many countries. While this will not prevent a deep recession, it will minimize the downside risks and support the eventual rebound. Markets are understandably in a deep funk because it is hard to price unknown risks. If this is no more than a two-quarter economic downturn followed by a sharp recovery, then a good buying opportunity in risk assets is in place given that monetary policy will stay hyper accommodative for a considerable time. If the downturn lingers much longer than that, then equities remain at risk. While loath to make a prediction, I am uncharacteristically tending to the more optimistic side. Let’s make the heroic assumption that we are not in an end of days scenario and that this crisis will pass at some point in the next year- hopefully sooner than later. What are some of the longer-run implications? A few come to mind. The backlash against globalization will gather impetus. Public sector debt will rise to unimaginable peacetime levels. Meanwhile, the crisis puts the final nail in the coffin of the private sector Debt Supercycle. Monetary policy will err on the side of ease for a very long time. The way that companies and other institutions have been forced to adapt to the crisis could trigger lasting changes in how they operate. Globalization In Full Retreat Chart 2A Retreat From Globalization The peak of globalization has been a central part of the BCA view for several years.3 Long before the current crisis, it was clear that anti-globalization forces were gathering strength, illustrated by increased trade barriers, a backlash against inward migration in many countries, and reduced flows of foreign direct investment (Chart 2). The Trump Administration’s imposition of tariffs and the Brexit vote were two of the more obvious examples of the change in attitudes. The supply-chain interruptions caused by factory shutdowns in China will reinforce the view that shifting production to cheaper-cost countries overseas went too far. At a minimum, it seems inevitable that many companies will seek to reduce their reliance on a single producer for critical components. On the medical front, one striking fact to emerge was that China supplies around 80% of US antibiotics. There will be massive pressure to develop greater homegrown supplies of medical supplies and other products deemed critical for economic and national security. The crisis also has led to a breakdown of the Schengen Area of open borders within the European Union (EU). Many member countries have reinstituted border controls and it is unclear when these might be removed. The free movement of people is a core principle of the EU. Meanwhile, the Maastricht Treaty rules on fiscal discipline, a key element of economic union, have been thrown out of the window. Even Germany has bowed to the pressure of relaxing fiscal constraints. Finally, a worsening situation for the already troubled Italian banking system will threaten EU financial stability. Overall, the crisis will leave a huge question mark over the long-term viability of the EU. Globalization was a major force behind disinflation as production shifted to low-cost producers. A reversal of this trend will thus be inflationary, at the margin. For many, this will be a price worth paying if it means increased job security and reduced vulnerability of supply chains. But the shift away from globalization will not be the only trend that threatens an eventual resurgence of inflation. The Explosion In Government Debt: Last Gasp Of  The Debt Supercycle BCA introduced the concept of the Debt Supercycle more than 40 years ago to describe the actions of policymakers to pump up demand rather than allow financial imbalances to be fully unwound during economic downturns. This inevitably meant that each new cycle began with a higher level of financial imbalances. As indebtedness rose, the economic costs of a financial cleansing increased, requiring ever-more desperate policy measures to shore things up. Unfortunately, such actions merely created the conditions for greater excesses and imbalances down the road. For example, the Federal Reserve’s aggressive response to the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000 helped set the scene for the even bigger housing bubble later in the decade. In that sense, the Debt Supercycle was a self-reinforcing trap that was bound to end badly, and that occurred in 2007. Chart 3The US Household Love Affair With Debt Died A Decade Ago Our discussion of the US Debt Supercycle was focused largely on the private sector because that is where rising imbalances posed the greatest threat to economic and financial stability. Rising public sector imbalances were less of a concern because governments do not finance themselves through the banking sector. Moreover, unlike the private sector, taxes can always be raised to boost revenues or, in extremis, the authorities can resort to the printing press. At the end of 2014, we wrote that the Debt Supercycle was dead. By that, we meant that easing policy would no longer be able to encourage a new cycle of leverage-financed private-sector spending. The downturn of 2007-09 was a turning point in attitudes toward debt, much in the way that those who lived through the Great Depression were financially conservative for the rest of their lives. Our view has been vindicated by the fact the ratio of household debt to income has decisively broken its pre-housing bubble uptrend and has failed to revive in the face of record-low interest rates (Chart 3). Corporate borrowing has been strong, but largely to finance stock buybacks and M&A activity. Capital spending has been disappointing this cycle, despite strong profits and margins. The current deep downturn will add a further nail in the coffin of the private sector Debt Supercycle. The shock of the recession and destruction of wealth will leave a legacy of increased financial caution with households wanting to build precautionary savings and companies striving to repair damaged balance sheets. It would not be a surprise to see the US personal saving rate head back to the double-digit levels of the early 1980s. While the private sector embraces greater financial conservatism, we are witnessing the start of an extraordinary surge in public sector deficits and debt from already high levels. Chart 4A Bad Starting Point For A Surge In The Federal Deficit Budget deficits automatically rise during recessions because tax receipts drop and spending on unemployment and welfare programs goes up (Chart 4). In the past, the starting point for deficits generally was low before a recession took hold. This time, the federal deficit has breached 5% of GDP when the economy was doing fine. With the current recession set to be deeper than in 2007-09 and fiscal stimulus likely to end up much more than the initial $2 trillion package, the deficit will far exceed the previous post-WWII peak of almost 10% of GDP, reached in fiscal 2009. The ratio of federal debt to GDP will soar past 100% within the next few years, exceeding the peak reached in WWII. A speedy decline in WWII debt burdens was helped by a sharp rebound in economic activity, supported by a powerful combination of demographics (the post-WWII baby boom) and pent-up demand. Real GDP grew at an average annualized pace of 4.3% in both the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, slower population growth means that growth in the next one and two decades will be less than half that pace. At the same time, the federal deficit will be under upward pressure because of the impact of an aging population on healthcare and social security. In other words, restoring order to fiscal finances through normal measures (growth and/or austerity) will be an impossible task. High levels of government debt are perfectly manageable when private sector savings are plentiful, interest rates are negligible, and investors seek the safety of low-risk bonds. Thus, $1 trillion US federal deficits have not prevented Treasury yields from falling to all-time lows. However, such conditions will not last indefinitely. The timing of when bloated budget deficits start to impact markets and thus the economy will partly depend on the actions of the Fed. Monetary Policy: Is There  A Limit To What It Can Do? Gone are the days when monetary policy was a rather technical exercise: tweaking the level of interest rates to ensure that money and credit trends delivered the economic growth consistent with low and stable inflation. In the past decade, the old rule book has been discarded with policymakers forced to take ever-more extreme measures to prevent total collapse of the economic and financial system. The 2007-9 downturn was easier to deal with than the current crisis. The primary problem a decade ago was a financial rather than economic seizure. While policymakers had to be creative, the main task was to shore up systemically important financial institutions and inject enough liquidity into the system to restore normal market functioning. And it worked. This time, the issue is an economic not financial seizure and associated liquidity strains are a symptom, not the primary problem. The immediate role of central banks is again to ensure that the financial system continues to function by injecting whatever amounts of liquidity are necessary. But monetary policy cannot directly bail out all the businesses that face bankruptcy or help those that have lost their jobs. That is the role of fiscal policy. What central banks can do is print money to finance the rise in budget deficits. During WWII, the Fed had an agreement with the Treasury Department to peg the level of long-term yields below 2.5% and this arrangement persisted until 1951, long after the war ended. This ensured that a post-war rebound in private credit demand would not cause a spike in interest rates that might short-circuit the recovery. We could well see a similar arrangement in the coming years, though it might be an informal rather than publicized agreement. The key point is that the Fed will be massively biased toward easy policy for many years. The current generation of central bankers have experienced periodic threats of deflation rather than inflation during the past 20 years and that will shape how they perceive the balance of risks going forward. After the Great Depression of the 1930s, fears of deflation lingered well into the 1950s and policymakers’ resulting complacency toward inflation led to the inflation spike of the 1970s. We are at a similar point again. The Fed will remain a massive buyer of Treasury bonds, even as the economy recovers because it will not want to risk higher yields undermining growth. Even if inflation starts to rise, the Fed will justify a continued easy stance on the grounds that inflation has fallen far short of its 2% target for many years. Given the combination of a global blowout in central bank balance sheets and the retreat from globalization, the scene will be set for inflation to surprise on the upside. But this may not occur for several years because the recession will create a lot of spare capacity and deflation is a greater near-term threat than inflation. We have long argued that a sustained upturn in inflation would be preceded by a final bout of deflation. The revival of inflation may be gradual but its insidious nature ultimately will make it more dangerous. It seems inevitable that there will have to be monetization of public sector debt, not only in the US but in other major economies. Once investor confidence returns, the demand for government bonds will recede and yields will be under upward pressure. Financial repression may help contain the rise, but that cannot be a long-term solution. In the end, central banks will be the bond buyers of last resort and ultimately it will have to be written off via making the debt effectively non-maturing. If the economic picture continues to deteriorate could central banks use quantitative easing to start buying assets such as equities and real estate? Current legislation prevents such purchases in the case of the Fed and European Central Bank. Of course, legislation can always be changed but the Fed would be reluctant for Congress to change the Federal Reserve Act. That could open a can of worms including amendments such as requiring regular audits of policy decisions and altering how regional presidents are chosen. But it will not be the Fed’s decision and if things get bad enough then nothing should be ruled out. An Accelerated Move To Virtual Activity? The restrictions on travel and public meetings and the closure of many businesses have forced companies to embrace online ways of conducting operations. And the same applies to schools and universities. In many cases, companies may find that virtual meetings between far-flung offices work rather well. This could cause a major rethink about future spending on business travel. Replacing travel with virtual meetings not only saves on airfares but also frees up employee time and reduces stress. And the improvements in communication technology make virtual meetings almost as good as the real thing. Of course, this is not a great story for airlines. The same arguments can be made for education but are slightly less compelling because of the social dimension. Mixing with friends and peers is one of the big attractions for students and most would be loath to give this up. And for working parents, it is not feasible to have children stuck at home. Nonetheless, at the post-secondary level, there could be a move to more online teaching. Another consequence of the current crisis has been a forced shift to more online shopping. This trend was already well established but is now likely to accelerate. Those retailers who fail to adapt will fall by the wayside. Market Implications As noted at the outset, it is hard to make predictions without knowing how the virus will progress. But we know a few things. First, there is not much scope for bond yields to fall from current levels. Second, equity valuations have improved as a result of the collapse in prices. Third, monetary policy will remain supportive of markets for a long time. On this basis, it is easy to conclude that stocks should beat bonds handsomely over the medium and long term. The short-term picture is cloudier. If the recession is short-lived and economic activity rebounds strongly, then we currently have a good buying opportunity for stocks. But there is no way to make a prediction about this with any conviction. The case for a strong recovery is that policy is massively stimulative and there will be a lot of pent-up demand. The case for a slow and drawn-out recovery is that consumers and businesses will be left with greatly weakened balance sheets and the loss of small businesses and associated jobs could be a lasting problem. A final issue is that fears of another virus wave could weigh on consumer and business confidence. Initially, there will be some extremely strong quarters of growth but beyond that, the odds favor a drawn-out recovery rather than a vigorous one. Faced with such uncertainty, one strategy is to rely on technical indicators rather than economic forecasts as a judge of whether it is safe to rebuild positions in risk assets. This gives some reason for encouragement as measures of sentiment are at depressed extremes, typically seen only at major bottoms. And this is supported by momentum indicators at oversold extremes. However, a word of caution: these indicators make the case for a near-term bounce but say nothing about the durability of any rally. For some time, non-US markets have looked more appealing than Wall Street from a valuation perspective. That remains the case, but there is an important caveat. Thus far, the virus has been more of a problem for the developed countries than emerging ones (China and Iran excepted). It remains to be seen whether Africa, and Latin America and other countries in Asia and the Middle East can avoid a catastrophic spread of the virus. It could potentially be disastrous given the poor infrastructure and lack of government resources in those regions. Moreover, a shift away from globalization is not bullish for the emerging world. Some positions in gold are a good hedge given current uncertainties and the fact that inflation fears will rise long before actual inflation picks up. In normal circumstances, the extraordinary rise in the US budget deficit would be bearish for the US dollar. But other countries are following the same path so in relative terms, the US is no worse off. And there is still no serious competition to the dollar as the global reserve currency. Thus, while the dollar might weaken somewhat, it should not be a major source of risk to US assets. In closing, it is impossible to provide the certainty and high-conviction predictions that investors crave. That makes it rash to make aggressive bets on how things will play out in the economy and markets. At BCA, we favor equities over bonds but advise continued near-term caution. The bottoming process in equities could be volatile and drawn-out. Building positions gradually seems the most sensible strategy.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Chief Economist mbarnes@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 For an estimate of the virus impact on a range of economies, please see the recent OECD report “Evaluating the initial impact of COVID-19 containment measures on economic activity”. Available at: www.oecd.org 2 The report and underlying data are available at www.newyorkfed.org. 3 For example, the retreat from globalization was discussed in our 2015 Outlook report published at the end of 2014.

Special Report

Dear Client, This week’s report is written by BCA’s chief economist, Martin Barnes. Martin explores the myriad ways the pandemic could influence long-term economic and financial trends. I trust you will find his report very insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Making predictions about the economic and market outlook seems a futile exercise in the midst of such massive uncertainty. The deluge of articles about COVID-19 merely serves to highlight that nobody really knows how things will play out in the year ahead. Much depends on whether an effective vaccine or treatment becomes available within a reasonable timescale and that remains an open question. Social and economic disruption will continue to intensify until the spread of the virus starts to abate. One thing is certain. Economic activity around the world faces its biggest contraction in modern times. Declines in second quarter GDP will be mind-numbingly bad in a wide range of countries, especially those that have instituted lockdowns and the closure of non-essential businesses. According to the OECD, the median economy faces an initial output decline of around 25% as a result of shutdowns and restrictions.1 Chart 1A Meltdown In Economic Activity Estimates for the drop in US real GDP in the second quarter range as high as 50% at an annual rate. To put this into perspective, the peak-to-trough decline in US real GDP in the 2007-09 recession was a mere 4% over six quarters, and that felt catastrophic at the time. The New York Fed’s weekly economic index2 has already fallen to the lows of 2008 and worse is still to come (Chart 1). Could things be as bad as the 1930s Great Depression when US real GDP contracted by 25% over a three-year period? That would require an extreme apocalyptic view about the progression of the virus and does not bear thinking about. I am not that gloomy. Policymakers are acting aggressively to limit the economic damage. Central banks are flooding the system with liquidity and the cost of money is negligible. Meanwhile, fiscal caution has been thrown to the wind with massive government stimulus in many countries. While this will not prevent a deep recession, it will minimize the downside risks and support the eventual rebound. Markets are understandably in a deep funk because it is hard to price unknown risks. If this is no more than a two-quarter economic downturn followed by a sharp recovery, then a good buying opportunity in risk assets is in place given that monetary policy will stay hyper accommodative for a considerable time. If the downturn lingers much longer than that, then equities remain at risk. While loath to make a prediction, I am uncharacteristically tending to the more optimistic side. Let’s make the heroic assumption that we are not in an end of days scenario and that this crisis will pass at some point in the next year- hopefully sooner than later. What are some of the longer-run implications? A few come to mind. The backlash against globalization will gather impetus. Public sector debt will rise to unimaginable peacetime levels. Meanwhile, the crisis puts the final nail in the coffin of the private sector Debt Supercycle. Monetary policy will err on the side of ease for a very long time. The way that companies and other institutions have been forced to adapt to the crisis could trigger lasting changes in how they operate. Globalization In Full Retreat Chart 2A Retreat From Globalization The peak of globalization has been a central part of the BCA view for several years.3 Long before the current crisis, it was clear that anti-globalization forces were gathering strength, illustrated by increased trade barriers, a backlash against inward migration in many countries, and reduced flows of foreign direct investment (Chart 2). The Trump Administration’s imposition of tariffs and the Brexit vote were two of the more obvious examples of the change in attitudes. The supply-chain interruptions caused by factory shutdowns in China will reinforce the view that shifting production to cheaper-cost countries overseas went too far. At a minimum, it seems inevitable that many companies will seek to reduce their reliance on a single producer for critical components. On the medical front, one striking fact to emerge was that China supplies around 80% of US antibiotics. There will be massive pressure to develop greater homegrown supplies of medical supplies and other products deemed critical for economic and national security. The crisis also has led to a breakdown of the Schengen Area of open borders within the European Union (EU). Many member countries have reinstituted border controls and it is unclear when these might be removed. The free movement of people is a core principle of the EU. Meanwhile, the Maastricht Treaty rules on fiscal discipline, a key element of economic union, have been thrown out of the window. Even Germany has bowed to the pressure of relaxing fiscal constraints. Finally, a worsening situation for the already troubled Italian banking system will threaten EU financial stability. Overall, the crisis will leave a huge question mark over the long-term viability of the EU. Globalization was a major force behind disinflation as production shifted to low-cost producers. A reversal of this trend will thus be inflationary, at the margin. For many, this will be a price worth paying if it means increased job security and reduced vulnerability of supply chains. But the shift away from globalization will not be the only trend that threatens an eventual resurgence of inflation. The Explosion In Government Debt: Last Gasp Of  The Debt Supercycle BCA introduced the concept of the Debt Supercycle more than 40 years ago to describe the actions of policymakers to pump up demand rather than allow financial imbalances to be fully unwound during economic downturns. This inevitably meant that each new cycle began with a higher level of financial imbalances. As indebtedness rose, the economic costs of a financial cleansing increased, requiring ever-more desperate policy measures to shore things up. Unfortunately, such actions merely created the conditions for greater excesses and imbalances down the road. For example, the Federal Reserve’s aggressive response to the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000 helped set the scene for the even bigger housing bubble later in the decade. In that sense, the Debt Supercycle was a self-reinforcing trap that was bound to end badly, and that occurred in 2007. Chart 3The US Household Love Affair With Debt Died A Decade Ago Our discussion of the US Debt Supercycle was focused largely on the private sector because that is where rising imbalances posed the greatest threat to economic and financial stability. Rising public sector imbalances were less of a concern because governments do not finance themselves through the banking sector. Moreover, unlike the private sector, taxes can always be raised to boost revenues or, in extremis, the authorities can resort to the printing press. At the end of 2014, we wrote that the Debt Supercycle was dead. By that, we meant that easing policy would no longer be able to encourage a new cycle of leverage-financed private-sector spending. The downturn of 2007-09 was a turning point in attitudes toward debt, much in the way that those who lived through the Great Depression were financially conservative for the rest of their lives. Our view has been vindicated by the fact the ratio of household debt to income has decisively broken its pre-housing bubble uptrend and has failed to revive in the face of record-low interest rates (Chart 3). Corporate borrowing has been strong, but largely to finance stock buybacks and M&A activity. Capital spending has been disappointing this cycle, despite strong profits and margins. The current deep downturn will add a further nail in the coffin of the private sector Debt Supercycle. The shock of the recession and destruction of wealth will leave a legacy of increased financial caution with households wanting to build precautionary savings and companies striving to repair damaged balance sheets. It would not be a surprise to see the US personal saving rate head back to the double-digit levels of the early 1980s. While the private sector embraces greater financial conservatism, we are witnessing the start of an extraordinary surge in public sector deficits and debt from already high levels. Chart 4A Bad Starting Point For A Surge In The Federal Deficit Budget deficits automatically rise during recessions because tax receipts drop and spending on unemployment and welfare programs goes up (Chart 4). In the past, the starting point for deficits generally was low before a recession took hold. This time, the federal deficit has breached 5% of GDP when the economy was doing fine. With the current recession set to be deeper than in 2007-09 and fiscal stimulus likely to end up much more than the initial $2 trillion package, the deficit will far exceed the previous post-WWII peak of almost 10% of GDP, reached in fiscal 2009. The ratio of federal debt to GDP will soar past 100% within the next few years, exceeding the peak reached in WWII. A speedy decline in WWII debt burdens was helped by a sharp rebound in economic activity, supported by a powerful combination of demographics (the post-WWII baby boom) and pent-up demand. Real GDP grew at an average annualized pace of 4.3% in both the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, slower population growth means that growth in the next one and two decades will be less than half that pace. At the same time, the federal deficit will be under upward pressure because of the impact of an aging population on healthcare and social security. In other words, restoring order to fiscal finances through normal measures (growth and/or austerity) will be an impossible task. High levels of government debt are perfectly manageable when private sector savings are plentiful, interest rates are negligible, and investors seek the safety of low-risk bonds. Thus, $1 trillion US federal deficits have not prevented Treasury yields from falling to all-time lows. However, such conditions will not last indefinitely. The timing of when bloated budget deficits start to impact markets and thus the economy will partly depend on the actions of the Fed. Monetary Policy: Is There  A Limit To What It Can Do? Gone are the days when monetary policy was a rather technical exercise: tweaking the level of interest rates to ensure that money and credit trends delivered the economic growth consistent with low and stable inflation. In the past decade, the old rule book has been discarded with policymakers forced to take ever-more extreme measures to prevent total collapse of the economic and financial system. The 2007-9 downturn was easier to deal with than the current crisis. The primary problem a decade ago was a financial rather than economic seizure. While policymakers had to be creative, the main task was to shore up systemically important financial institutions and inject enough liquidity into the system to restore normal market functioning. And it worked. This time, the issue is an economic not financial seizure and associated liquidity strains are a symptom, not the primary problem. The immediate role of central banks is again to ensure that the financial system continues to function by injecting whatever amounts of liquidity are necessary. But monetary policy cannot directly bail out all the businesses that face bankruptcy or help those that have lost their jobs. That is the role of fiscal policy. What central banks can do is print money to finance the rise in budget deficits. During WWII, the Fed had an agreement with the Treasury Department to peg the level of long-term yields below 2.5% and this arrangement persisted until 1951, long after the war ended. This ensured that a post-war rebound in private credit demand would not cause a spike in interest rates that might short-circuit the recovery. We could well see a similar arrangement in the coming years, though it might be an informal rather than publicized agreement. The key point is that the Fed will be massively biased toward easy policy for many years. The current generation of central bankers have experienced periodic threats of deflation rather than inflation during the past 20 years and that will shape how they perceive the balance of risks going forward. After the Great Depression of the 1930s, fears of deflation lingered well into the 1950s and policymakers’ resulting complacency toward inflation led to the inflation spike of the 1970s. We are at a similar point again. The Fed will remain a massive buyer of Treasury bonds, even as the economy recovers because it will not want to risk higher yields undermining growth. Even if inflation starts to rise, the Fed will justify a continued easy stance on the grounds that inflation has fallen far short of its 2% target for many years. Given the combination of a global blowout in central bank balance sheets and the retreat from globalization, the scene will be set for inflation to surprise on the upside. But this may not occur for several years because the recession will create a lot of spare capacity and deflation is a greater near-term threat than inflation. We have long argued that a sustained upturn in inflation would be preceded by a final bout of deflation. The revival of inflation may be gradual but its insidious nature ultimately will make it more dangerous. It seems inevitable that there will have to be monetization of public sector debt, not only in the US but in other major economies. Once investor confidence returns, the demand for government bonds will recede and yields will be under upward pressure. Financial repression may help contain the rise, but that cannot be a long-term solution. In the end, central banks will be the bond buyers of last resort and ultimately it will have to be written off via making the debt effectively non-maturing. If the economic picture continues to deteriorate could central banks use quantitative easing to start buying assets such as equities and real estate? Current legislation prevents such purchases in the case of the Fed and European Central Bank. Of course, legislation can always be changed but the Fed would be reluctant for Congress to change the Federal Reserve Act. That could open a can of worms including amendments such as requiring regular audits of policy decisions and altering how regional presidents are chosen. But it will not be the Fed’s decision and if things get bad enough then nothing should be ruled out. An Accelerated Move To Virtual Activity? The restrictions on travel and public meetings and the closure of many businesses have forced companies to embrace online ways of conducting operations. And the same applies to schools and universities. In many cases, companies may find that virtual meetings between far-flung offices work rather well. This could cause a major rethink about future spending on business travel. Replacing travel with virtual meetings not only saves on airfares but also frees up employee time and reduces stress. And the improvements in communication technology make virtual meetings almost as good as the real thing. Of course, this is not a great story for airlines. The same arguments can be made for education but are slightly less compelling because of the social dimension. Mixing with friends and peers is one of the big attractions for students and most would be loath to give this up. And for working parents, it is not feasible to have children stuck at home. Nonetheless, at the post-secondary level, there could be a move to more online teaching. Another consequence of the current crisis has been a forced shift to more online shopping. This trend was already well established but is now likely to accelerate. Those retailers who fail to adapt will fall by the wayside. Market Implications As noted at the outset, it is hard to make predictions without knowing how the virus will progress. But we know a few things. First, there is not much scope for bond yields to fall from current levels. Second, equity valuations have improved as a result of the collapse in prices. Third, monetary policy will remain supportive of markets for a long time. On this basis, it is easy to conclude that stocks should beat bonds handsomely over the medium and long term. The short-term picture is cloudier. If the recession is short-lived and economic activity rebounds strongly, then we currently have a good buying opportunity for stocks. But there is no way to make a prediction about this with any conviction. The case for a strong recovery is that policy is massively stimulative and there will be a lot of pent-up demand. The case for a slow and drawn-out recovery is that consumers and businesses will be left with greatly weakened balance sheets and the loss of small businesses and associated jobs could be a lasting problem. A final issue is that fears of another virus wave could weigh on consumer and business confidence. Initially, there will be some extremely strong quarters of growth but beyond that, the odds favor a drawn-out recovery rather than a vigorous one. Faced with such uncertainty, one strategy is to rely on technical indicators rather than economic forecasts as a judge of whether it is safe to rebuild positions in risk assets. This gives some reason for encouragement as measures of sentiment are at depressed extremes, typically seen only at major bottoms. And this is supported by momentum indicators at oversold extremes. However, a word of caution: these indicators make the case for a near-term bounce but say nothing about the durability of any rally. For some time, non-US markets have looked more appealing than Wall Street from a valuation perspective. That remains the case, but there is an important caveat. Thus far, the virus has been more of a problem for the developed countries than emerging ones (China and Iran excepted). It remains to be seen whether Africa, and Latin America and other countries in Asia and the Middle East can avoid a catastrophic spread of the virus. It could potentially be disastrous given the poor infrastructure and lack of government resources in those regions. Moreover, a shift away from globalization is not bullish for the emerging world. Some positions in gold are a good hedge given current uncertainties and the fact that inflation fears will rise long before actual inflation picks up. In normal circumstances, the extraordinary rise in the US budget deficit would be bearish for the US dollar. But other countries are following the same path so in relative terms, the US is no worse off. And there is still no serious competition to the dollar as the global reserve currency. Thus, while the dollar might weaken somewhat, it should not be a major source of risk to US assets. In closing, it is impossible to provide the certainty and high-conviction predictions that investors crave. That makes it rash to make aggressive bets on how things will play out in the economy and markets. At BCA, we favor equities over bonds but advise continued near-term caution. The bottoming process in equities could be volatile and drawn-out. Building positions gradually seems the most sensible strategy.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Chief Economist mbarnes@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    For an estimate of the virus impact on a range of economies, please see the recent OECD report “Evaluating the initial impact of COVID-19 containment measures on economic activity”. Available at: www.oecd.org 2   The report and underlying data are available at www.newyorkfed.org. 3   For example, the retreat from globalization was discussed in our 2015 Outlook report published at the end of 2014.

Highlights Our short EM equity index recommendation has reached our target and we are booking profits on this trade. The halt to economic activity will produce a global recession that will be worse than the one that took place in late 2008. We continue to recommend short positions in a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar. In EM fixed-income markets, the duration of the ongoing selloff has been short, and large losses will trigger more outflows ensuring further carnage. Stay defensive for now. Russia is unlikely to make a deal with Saudi Arabia to restrain oil output for now. Feature The global economy is experiencing a sudden, jarring halt. The only comparison for such a sudden stop is the one that occurred in the fall of 2008, following Lehman’s bankruptcy. In our opinion, the global economic impact of the current sudden stop is shaping up to be worse than the one that occurred in 2008. That said, we are taking profits on our short position in EM equities. This position – recommended on January 30, 2020 – has produced a 30% gain.   EM share prices have reached the long-term support that acted as the ultimate floor during the bear markets in 1997-‘98, 2001-‘02, 2007-‘08 and 2015. Our decision to take profits reflects investment discipline. The MSCI EM stock index in US dollar terms has reached our target. In addition, this decision is consistent with two important indicators that we follow and respect: 1. EM stocks have become meaningfully cheap. Chart I-1 illustrates that our cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for EM equities is about one standard deviation below its fair value – the same level when the EM equity market bottomed in 1998, 2008 and 2015. Chart I-1EM Equities Are Cheap According To The Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio For this EM CAPE ratio to reach 1.5 standard deviations below its fair value – the level that is consistent with EM’s 2001-02 lows – EM share prices need to drop another 15%. 2. In term of the next technical support, EM share prices have reached the long-term support that acted as the ultimate floor during the bear markets in 1997-‘98, 2001-‘02, 2007-‘08 and 2015 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2EM Share Prices Are At Their Long-Term Support While share prices are likely to undershoot, it is risky to bet on a further decline amid current extremely elevated uncertainty and market volatility. The Global Downturn Will Be Worse Than In Late 2008 Odds are that the current global downturn is shaping up to be worse than the one that occurred in late 2008. From a global business cycle perspective, the current sudden halt is beginning from a weaker starting point. Global trade growth was positive back in August-September 2008 – just prior to the Lehman bankruptcy – despite the ongoing US recession (Chart I-3A). In comparison, global trade was shrinking in December 2019, before the COVID-19 outbreak (Chart I-3B). Chart I-3AGlobal Trade Growth Was Positive In September 2008… Chart I-3B…But Was Negative In December 2019   This is because growth in EM and Chinese economies was still very robust in the middle of 2008. Moreover, the economies of EM and China were structurally very healthy and were anchored by solid fundamentals. Still, the blow to confidence emanating from the crash in global financial markets and plunge in US domestic demand in the fall of 2008 produced major shockwaves in EM/Chinese financial markets. Provided the ongoing negative confidence shock and lingering uncertainty persist, odds are that the risk premium will initially overshoot before settling down. Consistently, risk markets will undershoot in the interim. This is in contrast with current cyclical growth conditions and structural economic health, both of which are very poor in EM/China going into this sudden stop.   In China, economic growth in January-February 2020 was much worse than at the trough of the Lehman crisis in the fourth quarter of 2008. Chart I-4 reveals that industrial production, auto sales and retail sales volumes all contracted in January-February 2020 from a year ago. The same variables held up much better in the fourth quarter of 2008 (Chart I-4). Business activity in China is recovering in March, but from very low levels. Reports and evidence from the ground suggest that many companies are operating well below their ordinary capacity – the level of economic activity remains well below March 2019 levels. US real GDP, consumer spending and capital expenditure shrunk by 4%, 2.5% and 17% at the trough of 2008 recession (Chart I-5). Odds are that these variables will plunge by an even greater magnitude in the coming months as the US reinforces lockdowns and public health safety measures. Chart I-4China Business Cycle Was Much Stronger In Q4 2008 Than Now Chart I-5US Growth At Trough Of 2008 Recession   Chart I-6US Small Caps: Overlay Of 2008 And 2020 About 50% of consumer spending in the US is attributed to people over 55 years of age. Provided COVID-19’s fatality rate is high among the elderly, odds are this cohort will not risk going out and spending. How bad will domestic demand in the US be? It is impossible to forecast with any certainty, but our sense is that it will plunge by more than it did in the late 2008-early-2009 period, i.e., by more than 4% (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Interestingly, the crash in US small-cap stocks resembles the one that occurred in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy (Chart I-6). If US small-cap stocks follow their Q4 2008 - Q1 2009 trajectory, potential declines from current levels will be in the 10%-18% range. Bottom Line: The current halt in economic activity and impending global recession will be worse than the one that took place in late 2008. Reasons Not To Jump Into The Water…Yet Even though EM equities have become cheap and oversold and we are booking profits on our short position in EM stocks, conditions for a sustainable rally do not exist yet: So long as EM corporate US dollar bond yields are rising, EM share prices will remain under selling pressure (Chart I-7). Corporate bond yields are shown inverted in this chart. Chart I-7EM Stocks Fall When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise Chart I-8Chinese And Emerging Asian Corporate Bond Yields Are Spiking The selloff in both global and EM credit markets began only a few weeks ago from very overbought levels. Many investors have probably not yet trimmed their positions. Hence, EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads and yields will likely rise further as liquidation in the global and EM credit markets persists. Consistently, bond yields for Chinese offshore corporates as well as emerging Asian high-yield and investment-grade corporates are rising (Chart I-8). EM local currency bond yields have also spiked recently as rapidly depreciating EM currencies have triggered an exodus of foreign investors. Rising local currency bond yields are not conducive for EM share prices (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EM Equities Drop When EM Local Bond Yields Rise EM ex-China currencies correlate with commodities prices (Chart I-10). Both industrial commodities and oil prices have broken down and have further downside. The path of least resistance for oil prices is down, given anemic global demand and our expectation that Russia and Saudi Arabia will not reach any oil production cutting agreement for several months (please refer to our discussion on this topic below). Finally, our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio1 is in free fall and will likely reach its 2015 lows before troughing (Chart I-11). This ratio tightly correlates with EM share prices, and the latter remains vulnerable to further downside as long as this ratio is falling. Chart I-10EM Currencies Move In Tandem With Commodities Prices Chart I-11More Downside In Risk-On/ Safe-Haven Currency Ratio   Bottom Line: Although we are taking profits on the short EM equity position, we continue to recommend short positions in a basket of EM currencies – BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW – versus the US dollar. Liquidation in EM fixed-income markets has been sharp, but the duration has been short –only a few weeks. Large losses will trigger more outflows from EM fixed-income markets. Stay defensive for now. What We Do Know And What We Cannot Know Amid such extreme uncertainty, it is critical for investors to distinguish between what we know and what we cannot know. What we cannot know: With regards to COVID-19: The speed of its spread, the ultimate number of victims it claims and – finally – its impact on consumer and business confidence and psyche. Related to lockdowns: Their duration in key economies. These questions will largely determine this year’s economic growth trajectory: Will it be V-, U-, W-, or L-shaped? Unfortunately, no one knows the answers to the above questions to have any certainty in projecting this year’s global growth. The key factor that gives Russia an advantage over Saudi Arabia in terms of its ability to deal with a negative terms-of-trade shock is not only its better fiscal position but also its ability to depreciate its currency. What we do know: Authorities in all countries will stimulate aggressively so long as financial markets are rioting. Nonetheless, these stimulus measures will not boost growth immediately. With entire countries locked down and plunging consumer and business confidence, stimulus will not have much impact on growth in the near term. In brief, all policy stimulus will boost growth only when worries about the pandemic subside and the economy begins to function again. Both are not imminent. Hence, we are looking at an air pocket with respect to near-term global economic growth. As we argued in our March 11 report titled, Unraveling Of The Policy Put, the pre-coronavirus financial market paradigm – where stocks and credit markets were priced to perfection because of the notion that policymakers would not allow asset prices to drop – has unravelled.   In recent weeks, policymakers around the world have announced plans to deploy massive amounts of stimulus, yet the reaction of financial markets has been underwhelming. The reason is two-fold: Both demand shrinkage and production shutdowns have just started, and they will run their due course regardless of announced policy stimulus measures. Equity and credit markets were priced for perfection before this selloff, and investors are in the process of recalibrating risk premiums. Provided the ongoing negative confidence shock and lingering uncertainty persist, odds are that the risk premium will initially overshoot before settling down. Consistently, risk markets will undershoot in the interim. Bottom Line: DM’s domestic demand downturn is still in its initial phase, and there is little foresight in terms of the pandemic’s evolution. These are natural forces, and any stimulus policymakers enact are unlikely to preclude them from occurring. Reflecting the economic contraction and heightened uncertainty, the selloff in risk assets will likely continue for now. Do Not Bet On An Early Resuscitation Of OPEC 2.0 As we argued in our March 11 report, Russia is unlikely to make a deal with Saudi Arabia to restrain oil output in the immediate term. Russia may agree to restart negotiations, but it will not agree to reverse its position for some time. Both nations will be increasing crude output (Chart I-12). As a result, a full-fledged oil market share war is underway. Consistently, crude prices have experienced a structural breakdown (Chart I-13).  Chart I-12The Largest Oil Producers Are Ramping Up Output Chart I-13Structural Breakdown In Oil Prices   The key factor that gives Russia an advantage over Saudi Arabia in terms of its ability to deal with a negative terms-of-trade shock is not only its better fiscal position but also its ability to depreciate its currency. Russia has a flexible exchange rate, which will allow the currency to depreciate in order to soften the blow from lower oil prices on the real economy and fiscal accounts. The Russian economy and financial system have learned to operate with recurring major currency depreciations. Saudi Arabia has been running a fixed exchange rate regime since 1986 and cannot use currency depreciation to mitigate the negative terms-of-trade shock on its end. Even though Russia’s fiscal budget break-even oil price is much lower than that of Saudi Arabia’s, it is not the most important variable to consider in this confrontation. The fiscal situation in both Russia and Saudi Arabia will not be a major problem for now. Both governments can issue local currency and US dollar bonds, and there will be sufficient demand for these bonds from foreign and local investors. This is especially true with DM interest rates sitting at the zero-negative territory. Falling oil prices and downward pressure on exchange rates will trigger capital outflows in both countries. Russia has learned to live with persistent capital flight. In the meantime, capital outflows will stress Saudi Arabia’s financial system and, eventually, its real economy. This is in fact the country’s key vulnerability. We will be publishing a Special Report on Saudi Arabia in the coming weeks.  Bottom Line: Do not expect a quick recovery in oil prices. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, RUB, CLP, MXN & ZAR total return indices relative to average of CHF & JPY total returns.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations