Economy

Highlights US refiners will raise capacity-utilization rates as demand revives, which will keep crude oil inventories draining through 2H20. Early data indicate COVID-19-induced lockdowns pushed demand for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other products in the US down by a massive 31.9% vs. five-year average levels between March and end-April (Chart of the Week).1 Supply destruction in the US shales, a surge in crude exports, and an import collapse catalyzed by unintended inventory accumulation kept storage from breaching operational capacity outside Cushing, OK, where NYMEX WTI futures deliver. We continue to expect WTI to average ~ $37/bbl this year and ~ $65/bbl next year. Brent will trade ~ $3/bbl higher. Two-way price risk – to the upside and downside – remains high. Feature US refiners did an extraordinary job of balancing their systems in the wake of this demand collapse, which, with impelling alacrity, propelled similarly rapid adjustments in pipeline, storage and shipping markets.  Getting a fix on the actual demand destruction in oil markets wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic is exceedingly difficult. Few regional markets track fundamental data in anything close to a timely manner, except for the US, where the Energy Information Agency (EIA) publishes early estimates of crude and refined-product output, consumption, exports and imports on a weekly basis. Of course, these data are preliminary and will be revised – perhaps substantially – post-publication. However, they are invaluable for getting an early read on the effects of an exogenous shock like the COVID-19 pandemic in an advanced economy. While this experience cannot be translated directly to the rest of the world, the analysis is useful in getting a handle on the order of magnitude of demand destruction globally. These early data flows indicate that, between March and the end of April, US refined-product demand fell a stunning 31.9% vs. its five-year average, as shown in the Chart of the Week. The collapse in US product demand led OECD demand lower by a similar magnitude, which is unsurprising, given the US accounted for ~ 20% of the 100mm b/d or so of products consumed globally prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. An analysis of these early data indicate US refiners did an extraordinary job of balancing their systems in the wake of this demand collapse, which, with impelling alacrity, propelled similarly rapid adjustments in pipeline, storage and shipping markets. These adjustments now are being reflected in forward curves for WTI and Brent, as market participants discount them. Chart of the WeekUS Refined-Products Demand Collapse Refiner Adjustments Propel Re-Balancing Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully. - Samuel Johnson2 As the extent of the demand destruction became apparent in March, US refiners in PADDs 2 and 3 – the US Midwest and Gulf Coast, respectively, where ~ 75% of US refining capacity is situated – moved quickly to throttle back operations (Chart 2).3 Average utilization rates in both districts fell from a 1Q20 peak of 96.5% in January to 71.2% in April. In volumetric terms, this represented a decline of 4.1mm b/d in US refiner crude inputs (gross), leaving total inputs at 13.4mm b/d by the end of April (Chart 3). Chart 2US Refiners Quickly Ramped Down Chart 3US Refiners Throttle Back Run Rates As Product Demand Collapses Early data indicate pipelines and storage operators let it be known their systems were rapidly filling. This sudden ramping down in operations reduced refiners’ demand for flowing crude oil, leading to a sharp unintended accumulation of crude and product inventory in the US midcontinent and Gulf Coast, and the US East coast (PADD 1), which can receive more than 3mm b/d of refined product on the Colonial Pipeline, a 5,500-mile line running from Houston, TX, to the New York Harbor (Chart 4). With crude and product storage filling, anecdotal reports now confirmed in the early data indicate pipelines and storage operators let it be known their systems were rapidly filling, and that they soon would be denying access to their transportation and holding facilities. Word reached the US shale-oil basins, particularly the Permian and midcontinent fields in Oklahoma and North Dakota, where producers were forced to lay down rigs and choke back crude flows to reduce output (Chart 5).4 Chart 4Demand Collapse Leads To Unintended Inventory Accumulation Chart 5The Word Goes Out To Cut Production, As Pipelines and Storage Fill Additional data will be required to assess how quickly crude production ramped down in the US shales, but it appears the quick-response capability of this production allowed storage operators outside of Cushing, OK, to avoid even coming close to breaching the critical 80% operating capacity threshold of storage operators in these key districts. US Ramps Crude Exports, Slashes Imports Sharply lower refiner demand forced producers and traders to move crude oil out of the US as quickly as possible. In addition to sharply curtailing production, sharply lower refiner demand forced producers and traders to move crude oil out of the US as quickly as possible, which they did (Chart 6). US crude exports are up 26.9% y/y in 1H20, and likely will continue to remain strong. At the same time, US imports of crude oil have fallen 12.6% y/y as refiners continue to manage their own storage levels and system requirements. This will allow floating storage, particularly in the US Gulf, to be drawn down, as refiners return to normal utilization rates (Chart 7). Chart 6US Crude Exports Soar, Imports Collapse ... Chart 7… And Floating Storage Soars, Particularly In The US Gulf The only outlier in all of this was Cushing, OK, where the NYMEX WTI futures contract delivers. Production curtailments in the shales, surging crude exports and sharply lower imports kept storage levels under control, for the most part, as refined-product demand was collapsing in the US. Indeed, EIA data indicate storage levels in PADDs 2 and 3 overall remained below 65% of working-storage capacity throughout March and April. The only outlier in all of this was Cushing, OK, where the NYMEX WTI futures contract delivers. Storage in Cushing breached 80% of capacity in the last two weeks of April before falling back to ~ 70% by mid-May (Chart 8). The proximate cause of this appears to be a disorderly termination of trading in the NYMEX WTI contract for May delivery in Cushing.5 Chart 8Storage In Cushing, OK, Breached 80% Of Capacity US Product Demand Revival It’s still early days, but there are indications of demand reviving in the US. The Apple Mobility Index, which tracks consumer interest in travel, appears to move in line with US refined-product demand (Chart 9). Our expectation remains demand will revive in 2H20 and will increase sharply y/y in 2021, given the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed in the US and globally. This, coupled with the massive supply cuts by OPEC 2.0 and producers outside the coalition, will allow prices to continue to rebound over this period.5 Brent prices likely will average $40/bbl this year and $68/bbl next year. We expect WTI to trade $2 - $4/bbl below Brent. That said, two-way price risk remains extremely high, as we have noted before. Output cuts by OPEC 2.0 and US shale-oil producers could overshoot, and take too much supply off the market as demand is recovering, while demand could once again collapse if a second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic emerges following the lifting of lockdowns globally. Chart 9US Interest In Travel Generally Appears To Be Picking Up     Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Fernando Crupi Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy FernandoC@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight WTI prices increased 74% since beginning of May as economies gradually ease lockdown measures and global voluntary and involuntary supply cuts intensify. In the US, total oil rig count fell 73% to an 11-year low of 237 rigs, reflecting weak investment appetite by producers. The IEA expects investment in the oil and gas sector to fall by $400 billion this year, led by a 32% decline in oil and gas investment. In trading markets, speculators are returning to WTI markets in expectations lower supply and reviving demand will drain inventories and move prices significantly up (Chart 10). Fund managers now hold 8-to-1 long contracts in WTI vs. 2-to-1 for Brent. Base Metals: Neutral The LMEX rose 10% since bottoming on March 23. Copper, aluminum, zinc and nickel are up by 15%, 6%, 9% and 13%. Iron ore prices dropped ~$2/MT on Tuesday as ore exports from Brazil’s Vale increased by 1.5mm tons, easing concerns about COVID-19 induced supply disruption in the country, according to Fastmarkets MB. Precious Metals: Neutral Record economic policy uncertainty in the US – and globally – keeps safe assets – chiefly gold and the US dollar – well bid (Chart 11). We expect the dollar will weaken as economies reopen and uncertainty wanes. As this unfolds, the risk of a temporary pullback in gold prices remains elevated. Medium to long term, persistent accommodative global monetary policy will continue to support the yellow metal’s upward trend. Ags/Softs:  Underweight According to the USDA, private exporters reported sales of 258k MT of soybeans for delivery to China split between the current and next marketing year, which was supportive of soybean futures prices. A weaker USD also is supporting grains, and rallying corn futures. Wheat was slightly down, as a softer USD positive is being offset by favorable weather conditions in the Black Sea export regions that compete with the US. Chart 10Speculators Are Returning to WTI Chart 11USD Well Bid By High Uncertainty     Footnotes 1     “Product Supplied” is the US EIA’s measure of demand.  2     From The Life of Samuel Johnson LL.D. Vol 3, by James Boswell. 3    PADD stands for Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts. 4    US Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette estimates as much as 2.2mm b/d of crude oil production has been shut in because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Please see US oil production shut-ins top 2.2 million b/d during pandemic: DOE chief published by S&P Global Platts May 21, 2020 5    Please see our April 30, 2020, report Stand By For Heavy Rolls: June WTI Could Go Below $0.00/bbl, which examines the anomalous behavior of May-delivery WTI futures traded on the NYMEX last month, which may have contributed to this dramatic deviation from the rest of the US storage market. Markets will, at some point in the near future, be looking for a detailed post-mortem surrounding the events that occurred during the termination of trading of the NYMEX of futures delivering in May at Cushing, when WTI futures traded as low as -$40.32/bbl (i.e., negative $40.32/bbl). Part of the proximate cause of the anomaly appears to be a failure by the CME Group, which operates the NYMEX, and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates US futures exchanges, to ensure an orderly termination of trading in May 2020 WTI futures contracts. See also Column: U.S. commodities watchdog issues blunt warning over oil volatility published by reuters.com May 14, 2020. In future research, we will explore the implications a non-trivial probability of negative prices in the future poses for the oil and gas markets, particularly in re capex and investment generally.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

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

An analysis on Turkey is available below.   Highlights Due to the sizable stimulus announced by the NPC, we are upgrading our outlook for Chinese growth for this year. Nevertheless, in terms of investment strategy, we are reluctant to chase China-related plays higher at the moment. Rising geopolitical tensions between the US and China will likely produce a pullback in China-related risk assets, providing a better entry point in the months ahead. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. There is evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors worldwide. Such retail-driven manias never end well, though they can last for a while. Feature Emerging market equities are facing a critical technical resistance. Chart I-1 shows that over the past decade, EM share prices often found support at the horizontal line during selloffs. The latter could now become a resistance point. In turn, the Australian dollar and the S&P 500 have climbed to their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Stocks Are Facing A Technical Resistance Chart I-2S&P 500 And AUD Are At Critical Technical Juncture   Having rallied strongly in the past two months, it is reasonable to expect that global risk assets will take a breather as investors assess the economic and geopolitical outlooks. China: Aggressive Stimulus… China has embarked on another round of aggressive stimulus. The government program approved by the National People’s Congress (NPC) last week laid out the following macro policy objectives: Stabilize employment. The NPC has pledged to create more than 9 million new jobs in urban areas. Although this is lower than last year’s target of more than 11 million new jobs, it is very ambitious given the number of layoffs that have occurred year-to-date. Chart I-3China: Money/Credit Is Set To Re-Accelerate Significantly accelerate the growth rate of broad money supply and total social financing relative to last year. Indeed, broad money growth accelerated in April and will continue to move higher (Chart I-3). Lending to enterprises and households as well as overall bank asset growth have all accelerated (Chart I-3, bottom two panels). Boost aggregate government spending (budgetary and quasi-fiscal) growth to 13.2% in 2020 versus 9.5% last year.   Local government’s special bond quotas have been set at RMB 3.75 trillion yuan, compared with RMB 2.15 trillion last year. The central government will issue special bonds in the order of 1 trillion yuan. The proceeds will be transferred to local governments to support tax and fee reductions, as well as to boost consumption and investment.  Support SMEs. The government will extend its beneficial loan-repayment policy for SMEs until March 2021. It will extend exemptions for SMEs on social security contributions, VAT and other fees and taxes through to the end of this year. The government estimates a total of RMB 2.5 trillion in tax and fee reductions for companies in 2020. Table I-1 details potential scenarios for the credit and fiscal spending impulse (CFI). In our baseline scenario, the CFI will rise to 15.5% of GDP by year-end (Chart I-4). In short, in 2020 the CFI will likely be larger than it was in 2015-’16 and closer to its 2012 level. However, it will still fall short of the 2009-2010 surge. Table I-1Simulation On Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse For 2020 Chart I-4Our Projections For The Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse In summary, it is fair to say that for now, the authorities have abandoned their deleveraging objective and are encouraging a substantial acceleration of both debt and credit. However, it will take time before the stimulus filters through the economy and boosts growth. This will be the case because of the following persistent headwinds: First, the reduced willingness of households and enterprises to spend. The top panel of Chart I-5 reveals that consumers’ marginal propensity to spend is falling. Enterprises’ willingness to invest continues to trend lower. Historically, companies’ willingness to invest has been a good indicator for industrial metals prices. So far it has not validated the advance in base metals (Chart I-5, bottom panel). The rationale for this correlation is that Chinese companies account for 50-55% of global industrial metals demand. Second, the COVID-19 economic downturn in China was much worse than previous downturns, and the financial health of companies and households is considerably poorer than before. This is why it will take very large amounts of stimulus to produce even a moderate recovery. In particular, a portion of the credit expansion will go toward plugging operating cash flow deficits at companies rather than to augment investment. For example, in the US, commercial and industrial loan growth surged in 2007/08 and this year (Chart I-6). In all of those cases, the underlying cause for credit acceleration was companies drawing on their credit lines to close their negative operating cashflow gaps. Chart I-5China: Households And Enterprises Are Less Willing To Spend Chart I-6US Loan Growth Spikes In Recessions The same phenomenon is presently occurring in China. This entails more credit origination will be required in China in this cycle before we witness a revival in capital spending. Third, geopolitical tensions between the US and China will escalate further in the months ahead. We elaborate on this in more detail below. As far as China’s growth outlook is concerned, rising geopolitical tensions with the US will weigh on both consumer and business confidence. On the whole, due to the sizable stimulus announced by the NPC, we are upgrading our outlook for Chinese growth for this year. Nevertheless, in terms of investment strategy, we are reluctant to chase China-related plays higher at the moment. Rising geopolitical tensions will likely produce a pullback in China-related risk assets, providing a better entry point in the months ahead. Chart I-7Chinese Economy: Still Very Weak In addition, the mainland economy is still undergoing post-lockdown normalization – not recovery. Both capital spending and household consumption are still in recession (Chart I-7).    Bottom Line: China is yet again resorting to aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus. Mainland growth is bound to improve over the remainder of the year. However, financial markets have run a bit ahead of themselves, and we will wait for a pullback before recommending China-related plays.  …But Geopolitics Is A Major Risk Despite an improving growth outlook, Asian and China-related risk assets could struggle in the months ahead due to escalating geopolitical tensions between the US and China. On the surface, the COVID-19 crisis seems to be the culprit behind rising tensions between the two nations. However, the pandemic has only accelerated an otherwise unavoidable confrontation between the existing superpower and the rising one. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team has been writing about cumulating tensions and the potential for them to boil over in the months before the US election. The contours of the rise in geopolitical tensions will be as follows: President Trump’s chances of re-election have declined, with the recession gripping the US economy and unemployment surging. There is little doubt that he will use external foes to rally the nation behind the flag. Blaming China for the pandemic and acting tough is probably the only way for Trump to switch his campaign’s nucleus from the economy to foreign policy, which will raise the odds of his election victory. The US administration will not resort to import tariffs this time around. Going forward, the administration’s goal will be cutting China’s access to foreign technology. Technology in general and semiconductors in particular will be the key battleground in this new cold war. The US will also step up its pressure on multinationals to move production out of China. The broader idea is to impede China’s technological advance. Even though the US rhetoric on China’s policies toward Hong Kong will be tough, there is little the US can do or will do regarding Hong Kong. Rather, the more important battleground will be Taiwan and its semiconductor industry. Finally, China’s political leadership cannot tolerate being perceived as weak domestically in the face of US pressures. They will retaliate against the US. One form of retaliation against Trump could be pushing North Korea to test its strategic military weapons that could undermine Trump’s foreign policy credibility in the US. Another form of retaliation could be tolerating moderate currency depreciation. The latter will challenge Trump’s claims that he has been victorious in dealing with China. The latest decision to ban US and foreign companies from accepting orders from Huawei and the slide in the value of the RMB are consistent with these narratives. To our surprise, however, financial markets in general and Asian markets in particular have not sold off meaningfully in response to the US ban on Huawei and renewed RMB depreciation. Critically, China is the world’s largest consumer of semiconductors, accounting for 35% of global semiconductor demand. Restricting Chinese purchases would be negative for global semiconductor producers. China has been aware of the risk of US restrictions on its imports of semiconductors and has been ramping up its semi imports since 2018. Semi imports have been booming even though smartphone sales had been shrinking (Chart I-8). This is a sign of large semiconductor restocking in China which has helped global semi sales in general and TSMC sales in particular in the past 18 months. In brief, major semi restocking by China in the past 18 months along with the ban on sales to Huawei all but ensure that global semiconductor sales will be weak this year. It does not seem that global semi stocks in general and Asian ones in particular are pricing in this outcome. Global semiconductor stocks are a hair below their all-time highs, and their trailing P/E ratio is at 21. Specifically, given Huawei is the second-largest customer of TSMC, the latter’s sales will be negatively affected (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Has China Been Stockpiling Semiconductors? Chart I-9TSMC Has Benefited From China Stockpiling Semiconductors Finally, both DRAM and NAND prices are falling anew (Chart I-10). Further, DRAM revenue proxy correlates with Korean tech stocks and points to lower share prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Semiconductor Prices Have Begun Falling Chart I-11Semiconductor Prices Are Still Deflating DRAM Revenue Proxy And Korean Tech Stocks Crucially, Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks account for 60% of the MSCI EM equity market cap. Hence, a selloff in these bourses will weigh on the EM equity index. Chart I-12 shows that the latest drawdown in these North Asian equity markets was relatively small compared to the drop in the rest of the EM equity universe. Hence, Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese share prices are not discounting a lot of bad news making them vulnerable to the geopolitical risks that lie ahead. Financial markets in Asia are very complacent to mounting geopolitical risks stemming from the US-China confrontation. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. Chart I-12North Asian Stocks Versus The Rest Of EM Bottom Line: Financial markets in Asia are very complacent to mounting geopolitical risks stemming from the US-China confrontation. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. The large share of Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks in the MSCI EM equity index implies significant downside risks to the EM equity benchmark. The Global Economic Outlook As economies around the world open, the level of economic activity will certainly begin to rise. The opening of shops, offices and various other facilities will result in a partial normalization and an increase in economic activities.  However, we cannot call this a recovery. Rather it is just a snapback from the lockdowns which both equity and credit markets have already fully priced in. The outlook for global share prices and credit markets depends on what happens to the global economy following this post-lockdown snapback. Will the snapback be followed by an actual recovery or will the level of activity stagnate at low levels? For now, our sense is that following the initial snapback a U-shaped recovery is the most likely global scenario. This does not exclude the possibility that activity in some sectors/countries will follow a square root trajectory.  From a global macro perspective, we have the following observations to share: Certain industries will likely experience stagflation. Due to social distancing measures, they will be forced to limit their output/capacity and compensate for their increased costs by charging higher prices. In this group, we would include airlines, restaurants, and other service sector businesses. The short-term outlook for consumer spending is contingent on fiscal stimulus. A material reduction in fiscal support for households will weigh on their spending capacity. Capital spending will remain subdued outside China’s stimulus-driven local government and SOE investment outlays, and outside the technology sector, generally. Critically, economic activity in many countries and industries will remain below pre-pandemic levels until late this year. This implies that despite the snapback, some businesses will still be operating below or close to their breakeven points. This will have ramifications on their ability to service debt and on their willingness to invest and hire. Any rise in government bond yields worldwide will be limited as central banks in both DM and EM will cap yields by augmenting their purchase of government and in some cases corporate bonds. We discussed EM QE programs in detail in last week’s report. Bottom Line: It is tempting to interpret the post-lockdown snapback in economic activity as a recovery. However, the nature and depth of this recession is unique. Investors should consider both the direction of economic indicators and the level of economic activity in relation to a company’s breakeven point. This is an extremely difficult task. And that is in addition to gauging the odds of a second wave of COVID-19 infections later this year. In the context of such complexities facing investors, there is astonishing evidence that the recent equity rally has been driven by unsophisticated retail investors. A Retail-Driven Equity Rally There is growing evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors, worldwide. There is growing evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors, worldwide. Such retail-driven manias never end well, though they can last for a while. The following articles corroborate the worldwide phenomenon that retail investors have been opening broker accounts en masse and investing in stocks: Bored Day Traders Locked at Home Are Now Obsessed With Options Frustrated sports punters turn to US stock market Coronavirus spawns new generation of Japanese stock pickers Stuck at Home, More Filipinos Try Luck at Stock Investing It is fair to assume that retail investors do very little fundamental analysis. Not surprisingly, since March global share prices have decoupled from profit expectations. Although some professional investors have no doubt also played the rally, surveys of asset managers and traders suggest that generally they have stayed lukewarm on stocks. Specifically, the net long position of asset managers and leveraged funds in various US equity index futures remains very low (Chart I-13). Chart I-14 shows that US traders’ and professional individual investors’ sentiment on US stocks are at multi-year lows. Only US investment advisors have become fairly bullish again (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Chart I-13Fund Managers Have Stayed Lukewarm On Stocks Chart I-14Professional Investors’ Sentiment On Stocks Have Been Subdued Who will capitulate first: retail or professional investors? It is hard to predict the behavior of investors but, if we had to guess, our take could be summed up as follows:  If geopolitical tensions escalate much more or the number of COVID-19 inflections in some large countries rises anew, retail investors will likely sell before professional investors step in. In this scenario, share prices will drop considerably. In the case of an absence of geopolitical tensions or a new wave of infections, it is hard to see how economic data that is improving could lead to a substantial drawdown in equities even if the level of activity remains very depressed. In this case, corrections will be small and short-lived. Investment Strategy Chart I-15Beware Of Breakdowns For global equity portfolios, we continue recommending underweighting EM stocks. Regardless of the direction of global share prices, EM will continue underperforming DM (Chart I-15, top panel). The basis for this is rising geopolitical tensions in China and weakness in the RMB will spill over into other emerging Asian currencies (Chart I-15, bottom panel). We continue recommending short positions in the RMB and KRW versus the US dollar. In terms of the absolute performance of EM equities and credit markets, as well as EM currencies versus the greenback, we recommend being patient. Global and EM financial markets are presently at a critical juncture, as illustrated in Charts 1 and 2 on pages 1 and 2. If these and some other markets meaningfully break above current levels of resistance, we will upgrade our stance on EM stocks and credit markets and close our short positions in EM currencies versus the US dollar. If they fail to do so, a considerable selloff is likely to follow. As to EM local currency bonds, we are long duration but cautious on EM currencies. For the full list of our recommendations for EM equity, credit, local fixed-income and currency markets, please refer to pages 18 and 19.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Lin Xiang, CFA Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com     Turkish Lira: Facing A Litmus Test The Turkish lira has rolled over at its resistance level on a total return (including carry) basis (Chart II-1). The spot rate versus the US dollar is at its 2018 low. In short, the exchange rate is facing a litmus test. The culprit of a potential downleg in the lira is an enormous monetary deluge. Chart II-2 reveals that broad money supply growth has accelerated to 35% from a year ago. Local currency money supply is skyrocketing because the central bank and commercial banks are engaged in rampant money creation and public debt monetization. Chart II-1Turkish Lira (Including Carry): A Good Point To Short Chart II-2Turkey’s Broad Money: The Sky Is The Limit While such macro policies could benefit economic growth in the short term, they also herald growing inflationary pressures and currency devaluation. First, Turkish commercial banks have been on a government bonds buying binge since 2018 (Chart II-3, top panel). They presently own 62% of total local currency government bonds, up from 45% in early 2018. In addition, the central bank is de-facto engaging in government debt monetization. The Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) has bought TRY 40 billion of government bonds in the secondary market since March (Chart II-3, bottom panel). When a central bank or commercial bank buys a local currency asset from a non-bank, a new local currency deposit is created in the banking system and the money supply expands.  Chart II-3Turkey: Public Debt Monetization In Full Force Chart II-4Turkey: Loan Growth Exceeds 30% Second, the commercial banks’ local currency loan growth has surged to 32% (Chart II-4). Government lending schemes and newly introduced regulations are incentivizing commercial banks to continue lending in order to boost domestic demand. In particular, state owned banks are providing loans at interest rates well below both the policy and inflation rates. The most likely outcome from such policies is rampant capital misallocation and an increase in non-performing loans. The former will weigh on productivity in the long turn. Third, the central bank has been providing enormous amounts of liquidity to commercial banks (Chart II-5, top panel). The latter’s local currency excess reserves – which are exclusively created out of thin air by the central bank - have surged (Chart II-5, bottom panel). In fact, the effective policy rate has been hovering below the actual policy rate, suggesting that there is an excess liquidity overflow in the banking system. In a nutshell, the central bank has been providing fuel to commercial banks to expand money supply via the purchases of local currency government bonds and loan origination. Fourth, an overly loose monetary stance will lead to higher inflation and currency devaluation. Moreover, wages continue to expand at an annual rate of 15-20%, confirming the fact that inflationary pressures are genuine and broad within this economy (Chart II-6). Higher inflation, and the consequent loss of purchasing power, is leading residents to switch their holdings of liras to foreign currencies. Chart II-5Central Banks' Liquidity Provision To Banks Chart II-6Turkey: A Sign Of Genuine Inflation Higher inflation, and the consequent loss of purchasing power, is leading residents to switch their holdings of liras to foreign currencies. Finally, Turkey’s current account deficit is set to widen, and the central bank’s net foreign currency reserves are non-existent at best. Booming credit growth will keep domestic demand and imports stronger than they otherwise would be. In the meantime, the complete collapse in tourism revenues and Turkey’s large foreign debt obligations, estimated at $160 billion over the next six months, entail negative balance of payment dynamics. Barring capital controls, Turkey will not be able to preclude further currency depreciation. Investment Implications Short the Turkish lira versus the US dollar. We recommend dedicated equity investors underweight Turkish equities and credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Also, we are reiterating our short Turkish banks / long Russian banks position. Local currency yields will offer little protection against currency depreciation. As such, investors should underweight domestic bonds.   Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Special Report

What Can 1918/1919 Teach Us About COVID-19?   “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana – 1905 Chart II-1Coronavirus: As Contagious But Not As Deadly As Spanish Flu Today’s economy is very different to that of 100 years ago. Many countries then were in the middle of World War I (which ended in November 1918). The characteristics of the Spanish Flu which struck the world in 1918 and 1919 were also different to this year’s pandemic. COVID-19 is almost as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but it is much less deadly (Chart II-1). Healthcare systems and treatments today are far more advanced than those of a century ago: many people who caught Spanish flu died of complications caused by bacterial pneumonia, given the absence of antibiotics. Influenza viruses tend to mutate rapidly: the influenza virus in 1918 first mutated to become far more virulent in its second wave, and then to become much milder. Coronaviruses have a “proofreading” capacity and mutate less easily.1  Nevertheless, an analysis of the pandemic of 100 years ago provides a number of insights into the current crisis, particularly now that policymakers are easing social-distancing rules to help the economy, even at the risk of more cases and deaths. Among the lessons of 1918-1919: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) do lower mortality rates. The speed at which NPIs are implemented and the period of implementation are as important as the number of measures taken. Removing or relaxing measures too early can lead to a renewed rise in mortality rates. It is hard to compare current fiscal and monetary policies to those taken during the 1918 pandemic, since policy in both areas was already easy before the pandemic as a result of the world war. However, a severe pandemic would certainly call for a wartime-like fiscal and monetary response. The economy was negatively impacted by the pandemic in 1918-19 but, despite the shock to industrial activity and employment, the economy subsequently rebounded quickly, in a V-shaped recovery. Introduction Predicting how the economy will react to the COVID-19 pandemic is hard. Governments and policymakers face multiple uncertainties: How effective are different containment measures? Will cases and deaths rebound quickly if lockdown measures are eased? When will the coronavirus disappear? When will a vaccine be ready? With an event unprecedented in the experience of anyone alive today, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from history. For this Special Report, we attempt to draw some parallels between the current situation and the 1918-19 Spanish flu. We focus on the different containment efforts implemented, the role that fiscal and monetary policies played, the impact on markets and the economy, and whether history can throw any light on how the COVID-19 crisis might pan out. The 1918 Spanish Flu Chart II-2The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal in modern history. Soldiers returning from World War I helped spread the pandemic across the globe. The first recorded case is believed to have been in an army camp in Kansas. While there is no official count, researchers estimate that about 500 million people contracted the virus globally, with a mortality rate of between 5% and 10%. The pandemic occurred over three waves in 1918 and 1919 – the first in the spring of 1918, the second (and most deadly) in the fall of 1918, and the third in spring 1919 (Chart II-2). In the US alone, official data estimate that around 500,000 deaths (or over 25% of all deaths) in 1918 and 1919 were caused by pneumonia and influenza.2 The pandemic moved swiftly to Europe and reached Asia by mid-1918, but became more lethal only towards the end of the year (Map II-1).3 Map II-1The Spread Of Influenza Through Europe Initially, scientists were puzzled by the origin of the influenza and its biology. It was not until a decade later, in the early 1930s, that Richard Shope isolated the particular influenza virus from infected pigs, confirming that a virus caused the Spanish Flu, not a bacterium as most had thought. Many of those who caught this strain of influenza died as a result of their lungs filling with fluid in a severe form of pneumonia. In reporting death rates, then, it is considered best practice to include deaths from both influenza and pneumonia. The first wave had almost all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit of a highly contagious strain. Symptoms were similar and mortality rates were only slightly higher than a normal influenza. The first wave went largely unnoticed given that deaths from pneumonia were common then. US public health reports show that the disease received little attention until it reappeared in a more severe form in Boston in September 1918.4 Most countries did not begin investigating and reporting cases until the second wave was underway (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Most Countries Began Reporting Only When The Second Wave Hit This second wave – which was more lethal because the virus had mutated – had a unique characteristic. Unlike the typical influenza mortality curve – which is usually “U” shaped, affecting mainly the very young and elderly – the 1918 influenza strain had a “W”-shaped mortality curve – impacting young adults as well as old people (Chart II-4). This pattern was evident in all three waves, but most pronounced during the second wave. The reason for this was that the infection caused by the influenza became hyperactive, producing a “cytokine storm” – when mediators secreted from the immune system result in severe inflammation.5 Simply put, as the virus became virulent, the body’s immune system overworked to fight it. Younger people, with strong immune systems, suffered most from this phenomenon. Chart II-4A Unique Characteristic: Impacting Younger Adults By the summer of 1919, the pandemic was over, since those who had been infected had either died or recovered, therefore developing immunity. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if “herd immunity” was achieved. However, some historical accounts and research – particularly for army groups in the US and the UK – suggest that those exposed to the disease in the first mild wave were not affected during the second more severe wave.6 The failure to define the causative pathogen at the time made development of a vaccine impossible. Nevertheless, some treatments and remedies showed modest success. These varied from using a serum – obtained from people who had recovered, who therefore had antibodies against the disease – to simple symptomatic drugs and various oils and herbs. The Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) Chart II-5Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough What we today call “social distancing” showed positive effects during the 1918-19 pandemic. These included measures very similar to those applied today: school closures, isolation and quarantines, bans on some sorts of public gatherings, and more. However, there were few travel bans. The number of passengers carried during the months of the pandemic did noticeably decline though (Chart II-5). Table II-1, based on research by Hatchett, Mecher and Lipsitch, breaks down NPIs by type for 17 major US cities. Most cities implemented a wide range of interventions. But it was not only the type of NPIs implemented that made a difference, but also the speed and length of implementation. Further research by Markel, Lipman and Navarro based on 43 US cities shows that the median number of days between the first reported influenza case and the first NPI implementation was over two weeks. The median period during which various NPIs were implemented was about six weeks (Table II-2). Table II-1Measures Applied Then Are Very Similar To Those Applied Today Table II-2NPIs Were Implemented Only For Short Periods Markel, Lipman and Navarro's findings show that a rapid public-health response was an important factor in reducing the mortality rate by slowing the rate of infection, what we now refer to as “flattening the curve.” There were major differences in cities’ policies: both the speed at which they implement NPIs, and the length of the implementation period. Chart II-6 shows that: Cities that acted quickly to implement NPIs slowed the rate of infections and deaths (Chart II-6, panel 1) Cities that acted quickly had lower mortality rates from influenza and pneumonia (Chart II-6, panel 2) Cities that implemented NPIs for longer periods had fewer deaths (Chart II-6, panel 3) Chart II-7 quantifies the number of NPIs taken, the time it took to implement the measures, and the length of NPIs to gauge policy strictness. Cities with stricter enforcement had lower death rates than those with laxer measures. Chart II-6Fast Response And Longer Implementation Led To Fewer Deaths... Chart II-7...So Did Policy Strictness     For example, Kansas City, less than a week after its first reported case, had implemented quarantine and isolation measures. By the second week, schools, churches, and other entertainment facilities closed. Schools reopened a month later (in early November) but quickly shut again until early January 1919. While we do not have definitive dates on when each NPI was lifted, some sort of protective measures in Kansas City were in place for almost 170 days. By contrast, Philadelphia, one of the cities hardest hit by Spanish Flu, took more than a month to implement any measures. Its tardiness meant that it reached a peak mortality rate much more quickly: in 13 days compared to 31 days for Kansas City. Even after the first reported case, the Liberty Loans Parade was still held on September 28, 1918 – with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of spectators might be vulnerable to infection.7,8 It was not until a few days later that institutions were closed and a ban on public gatherings was imposed. Many other cities also held a Liberty Loans Parade, including Pittsburgh and Washington DC, but Philadelphia’s was the deadliest. Studies also show that relaxing interventions too early could be as damaging as implementing them too late. St. Louis, for example, was quick to lift restrictions and suffered particularly badly in the second wave as a result. It later reinstated NPIs up until end of February 1919. Other cities that eased restrictions too early (San Francisco and Minneapolis, for example) also suffered from a second swift, albeit milder, increase in weekly excess death rates from pneumonia and influenza (Chart II-8). Chart II-8Relaxing Lockdown Measures Too Early Can Lead To A Second Rise In Deaths... Chart II-9...And So Can Highly Effective Measures Of course, NPIs cannot be implemented indefinitely. A recent research paper by Bootsma and Ferguson raises the point that suppressing a pandemic may not be the best strategy because it just leaves some people susceptible to infection later. They argue that highly effective social distancing measures, which allow a susceptible pool of people to reintegrate into society when the measures are lifted, are likely to lead to a resurgence in infections and fatalities in a second peak (Chart II-9).9 They suggest an optimal level of control measures to reduce R (the infection rate) to a value that makes a significant portion of the population immune once measures are lifted.  The Impact Of The Spanish Flu On The Economy And Markets How did the Spanish Flu pandemic affect the economy? Many pandemic researchers ignore the official recession identified by the NBER during the months of the pandemic (between August 1918 and March 1919).10 The reason is that most of the evidence indicates that the economic effects of the 1918-19 pandemic were short-term and relatively mild.11 Disentangling drivers of the economy is, indeed, tricky given that WW1 ended in November 1918. However, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact of the pandemic since the war had such a big impact on the economy, as well as investor and public sentiment. Various research papers support the fact that, while the pandemic did indeed have an adverse effect on the economy, NPIs did not just depress mortality rates, but also sped the post-pandemic economic recovery.12 Research by Correia, Sergio, and Luck showed that the areas most severely affected by the pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity, whereas cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively, experienced a relative increase in economic activity post the pandemic.13 Their findings are based on the increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic compared to before it (1919 versus 1914). However, note that the rise of manufacturing payrolls in 1919 was high everywhere given the return of soldiers post-WWI. The researchers also note that those cities hardest hit by the pandemic also saw a negative impact on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets. Chart II-10Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Because Spanish flu disproportionately killed younger adults, many families lost their breadwinner. In economic terms, this implies both a negative supply shock and negative demand shock. If fewer employees are available to produce a certain good, supply will fall. The same reduction in employment also implies reduced income and therefore lower purchasing power. Both cases will result in a decrease in output. However, the change in prices depends on the decline of supply relative to demand. In 1918-19, the impact was disinflationary: demand declined by more than supply, and both spending and consumer prices fell during the pandemic (Chart II-10). US factory employment fell by over 8% between March 1918 and March 1919 – the period from the beginning of the first wave until the end of the second wave. It is important to note, however, that few businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic years (Chart II-11). Additionally, the November 1918 Federal Reserve Bulletin highlighted that many cities, including New York, Kansas City, and Richmond, experienced a shortage of labor due to the influenza.14 Factory employment in New York fell by over 10% during this period. The link between the labor shortages and the decline in industrial production is unclear. Industrial activity in the US peaked just before the second wave, contracting by over 20% during the second wave (Chart II-12). Various industries reported disruptions: automobile production fell by 67%, anthracite coal production and shipments fell by around 45%, and railroad freight revenues declined by over seven billion ton-miles (Chart II-12, panels 2, 3 & 4). However, some of this decline is attributed to falling defense production after the war. Chart II-11Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Chart II-12Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly   Chart II-13The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic Chart II-14Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started The equity market moved in a broad range in 1915-1919 and fell sharply only ahead of the 1920 recession (Chart II-13). Seemingly, stock market participants were more focused on the war than the pandemic. The lack of reporting of the pandemic could have contributed to this: newspapers were encouraged to avoid carrying bad news for reasons of patriotism and did not widely cover the pandemic until late 1918.15 The Federal Reserve played an active role in funding the government’s spending on the war, and so monetary policy was very easy during the pandemic – but for other reasons. The Fed used its position as a lender to the banking system to facilitate war bond sales.16 Interest rates were cut in 1914 and 1915 even before the US entered the war. The US economy had been in recession between January 1913 and December 1914. Policy rates remained low throughout 1916 and 1917 and slightly rose in 1918 and 1919. It was not until 1920 that Federal Reserve Bank System tightened policy rapidly to choke off inflation, which accelerated to over 20% in mid-1920 – rising inflation being a common post-war phenomenon (Chart II-14). The Lessons Of 1918-19 For The Coronavirus Pandemic Non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be implemented until a vaccine, effective therapeutic drugs, or mass testing is available. Relaxing measures prematurely is as damaging as a tardy reaction to the pandemic. Reacting quickly and imposing multiple measures for longer periods not only reduces mortality rates, but also improves economic outcomes post-crisis. The economy suffers in the short-term: supply and demand shocks lead to lower output. The demand shock however is larger leading to lower prices and disinflationary pressures, at least during and immediately after the pandemic.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation   Footnotes 1 Please see the Q&A with immunologist and Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, published by BCA Research April 1st 2020: BCA Research Special Report, “Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers,” available at bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Leading Cause of Death, 1990-1998,” CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 3 Please see Ansart S, Pelat C, Boelle PY, Carrat F, Flahault A, Valleron AJ, “Mortality burden of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in Europe,” NCBI. 4 Please see Public Health Report, vol. 34, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1919. 5 Please see Qiang Liu, Yuan-hong Zhou, Zhan-qiu Yang Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan; 13(1): 3–10. 6 Please see Shope, R. (1958) Public Health Rep. 73, 165–178. 7 The Liberty Loans Parade was intended to promote the sale of government bonds to pay for World War One. 8 Please see Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M (2007) "Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic,"PNAS 104: 7582–7587. 9 Please see Bootsma M, Ferguson N, “The Effect Of Public Health Measures On The 1918 Influenza Pandemic In U.S. Cities,” PNAS (2007). 10 Please see https://www.nber.org/cycles.html 11 Please see https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/res…12 Please see https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/03/fight-the-pandemic-save-the-economy-lessons-from-the-1918-flu.html. 12 Please see Correia, Sergio and Luck, Stephan and Verner, Emil, Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu (March 30, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561560 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560. 13 Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- and Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1935. "November 1918," Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1918). 14 Please see https://newrepublic.com/article/157094/americas-newspapers-covered-pandemic. 15 Please see https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_role_during_wwi.

    Highlights Risk assets continue to ignore the dire state of the economy. “Don’t fight the Fed” will dictate investment policy for the coming months. Populism and supply-chain diversification will shape the world after COVID-19. Global stimulus will result in higher long-term inflation when the labor market returns to full employment. Asset prices are not ready for higher inflation rates. Precious metals, especially silver, will offer inflation protection. Stocks should structurally outperform bonds, even if they generate lower returns than in the past. Tech will continue to rise for now, but this sector will suffer when inflation turns higher. Feature Despite the continued collapse in economic activity, the S&P 500 remains resilient, bolstered by the largesse of the Federal Reserve and US government, and generous stimulus packages in other major economies. Stocks will likely climb even higher with this backdrop, but a violent second wave of COVID-19 infections may derail the scenario in the near term. The biggest risk, which is long-term in nature, is rising inflation. Public debt ratios will skyrocket in the G-10 and many emerging markets. Private debt loads, which are elevated in most countries, will also increase. Add rising populism and ageing populations into this mix and the incentive to push prices higher and reduce real debt loads becomes too enticing. Long-term investors must be wary. For the time being, overweight equities relative to bonds, but the specter of rising inflation suggests that growth stocks (e.g. tech) will not offer attractive long-term returns. Investors with an eye on multi-year returns should use the ongoing surge in growth stocks to strategically switch their portfolios toward small-cap equities, traditional cyclicals and precious metals. Economic Freefall Continues Most economic indicators paint a dismal picture for the US. Industrial activity is suffering tremendously. In April, industrial production collapsed by 15%, a pace matching the depth of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). The ISM New Orders-to-Inventories ratio remains extremely weak with no glimmer of a rebound in IP in May. The numbers for trucking activity and railway freight are equally poor. Chart I-1A Worried Consumer Saves The US labor market has not been this ill since the 1930s. 20.5 million jobs vanished in April and the unemployment rate soared to 14.7%, despite a 2.5 percentage point decline in the participation rate. The number of employees involuntarily working in part-time positions has surged by 5.9 million, which has hiked up the broader U-6 unemployment rate to 22.8%. Wage growth has rebounded smartly to 7.7%, but this is an illusion. Average hourly earnings rose only because low-wage workers in the leisure and hospitality fields bore the brunt of the pain, accounting for 37% of layoffs. The worst news is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies any worker explicitly fired due to COVID-19 as temporarily laid off, but without a vaccine it is highly unlikely that employment in the leisure, hospitality or airline sectors will normalize anytime soon. Unsurprisingly, lockdowns have limited the ability of households to spend. Americans have boosted their savings rate to 13.1%, the highest level in 39 years, as they worry about catching a potentially deadly illness, losing their jobs, watching their incomes fall, or all of the above (Chart I-1). This double hit to both employment and consumer confidence sparked a 22% collapse in retail sales on an annual basis in April, the worst reading on record. Putting it all together, real GDP contracted at a 4.8% quarterly annualized rate in Q1 2020 and the Congressional Budget Office expects second-quarter annual growth to plummet to -37.7%. The New York Fed’s Weekly Economic Index suggests a more muted contraction of 11.1% (Chart I-2), which would still represent a post-war record. Investors must look beyond the gloom. The economic weakness is not limited to the US. In Europe and in emerging markets, retail sales and auto sales are disappearing at an unparalleled pace. Industrial production readings in those economies have been catastrophic and manufacturing PMIs are still in deeply contractionary territory. As a result, our Global Economic A/D line and our Global Synchronicity indicator continues to flash intense weakness (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The Worst Is Still To Come Chart I-3Dismal Growth, Everywhere   Chart I-4China Leads The Way Investors must look beyond the gloom. China’s experience with COVID-19 is instructive despite questions regarding the number of cases reported. China was the first country to witness the painful impact of COVID-19 and the quarantines needed to fight the disease. It was also the first country to control the virus’s spread and, most importantly, to escape the lockdown, along with being the first to enact economic stimulatory measures. The results are clear: industrial production, domestic new orders, and to a lesser extent, retail sales, are all experiencing V-shaped recoveries (Chart I-4). Even Chinese yields are rising, despite interest rate cuts by the People’s Bank of China. Accommodative Policy Matters Most The global policy “put option” is still in full force, which is boosting asset prices. A 41% rally in the median US stock reflects both a massive amount of funds inundating the financial system and a recovery that will take hold in the coming 12 months in response to this stimulus and the end of lockdowns. Global monetary policies have been even more aggressive than after the GFC. Interest rates have fallen as quickly and as broadly as they did around the Lehman bankruptcy. Moreover, unorthodox policy measures have become the norm (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Easy Policy, Everywhere In China, credit generation is quickly accelerating and has reached 28% of GDP, the highest in 2 years. Moreover, policymakers are emphasizing the need to create 9 million jobs in cities and keep the unemployment rate at 6%. Consequently, the recent rebound in construction activity will continue because it is a perfect medium to absorb excess workers. The ever-expanding quotas for local government special bonds to CNY3.75 trillion will also ensure that infrastructure spending energizes any recovery. Therefore, we expect Chinese imports of raw materials and machinery to accelerate into the second half of the year. The country’s orders of machine tools from Japan have already bottomed, which bodes well for overall Japanese orders (Chart I-6). Europe has also moved in the right direction. Government support continues to expand and combined public deficits will reach EUR 0.9 trillion, or 8.5% of GDP. Governmental guarantees have reached at least EUR1.4 trillion. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank’s balance sheet is swelling more quickly than during either the GFC or the euro area crisis (Chart I-7). Unsurprisingly, European shadow rates have collapsed to -7.6% and European financial conditions are the easiest they have been in 8 years. Chart I-6Will China's Rebound Matter? Chart I-7The ECB Is Aggressive   More importantly, COVID-19 has broken the taboo of common bond issuance in Europe. Last week, Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and EC President von der Leyen hatched a plan to issue common bonds that will finance a EUR 750 billion recovery fund as part of the European Commission Multiannual Financial Framework. The EC will then allocate EUR 500 billion of grants (not loans) to EU nations as long as they adhere to European principles. The unified front by the three most senior European politicians reflects elevated support for the EU among all European nations and an understanding that economic ruin in the smaller nations could capsize the core nations (Chart I-8). Hence, fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Unsurprisingly, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Greek bond spreads all narrowed significantly following the announcement. Chart I-8The Forces That Bind Chart I-9Negative Rates Are Here, Sort Of US policymakers have abandoned any semblance of orthodoxy. The Fed’s programs announced so far have lifted its balance sheet by $2.9 trillion and could generate an expansion to $11 trillion by year-end. Moreover, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has highlighted that there is “no limit” to what the Fed can do with its unconventional policy apparatus. The nature of the US funding market makes negative rates very dangerous and, therefore, highly doubtful in that country. Nonetheless, the Fed is willing to buy more paper from the public and private sectors to push the shadow rate and real interest rates further into negative territory (Chart I-9). Moreover, the Federal government has already bumped up the deficit by $3 trillion and the House has passed another $3 trillion in spending. Senate Republicans will pass some of this program to protect themselves in November. According to BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy service, a total escalation in the federal deficit of $5 trillion (or 23% of 2020 GDP) is extremely likely this year. Chart I-10The Fed Is Monetizing The Deficit Combined fiscal and monetary policy in the US will have a more invigorating impact on the recovery than the measures passed in 2008-09. They represent a larger share of output than during the GFC (10.5% versus 6% of GDP for the government spending and 15.2% versus 8.3% for the Fed’s balance sheet expansion). Moreover, the Fed is buying a much greater percentage of the Treasury’s issuance than during the GFC (Chart I-10). Therefore, the Fed is much closer to monetizing government debt than it was 11 years ago. The combined monetary and fiscal easing should result in a larger fiscal multiplier because the private sector is not financing as much of the government’s largesse. Thus, the increase in the private sector’s savings rate should be short-lived and the current account deficit will widen to reflect the greater fiscal outlays. Low real rates and a larger balance-of-payments disequilibrium should weaken the dollar which will ease US financial conditions further. A Trough In Inflation Maintaining incredibly easy monetary and fiscal conditions as the economy reopens will lead to higher inflation when the labor market reaches full employment. Core CPI has collapsed to 1.4% on an annual basis and to -2.4% on a three-month annualized basis, the lowest reading on record. The breakdown of the CPI report is equally dreadful (Chart I-11). However, CPI understates inflation because the basket measured by the BLS includes many areas of commerce currently not frequented by consumers. Items actually purchased by households, such as food, have experienced accelerating inflation in recent months. Fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Beyond this technicality, the most important factor behind the anticipated structural uptick in inflation is a large debt load burdening the global economy. Total nonfinancial debt in the US stands at 254% of GDP, 262% in the euro area, 380% in Japan, 301% in Canada, 233% in Australia, 293% in Sweden and 194% in emerging markets (Chart I-12). Historically, the easiest method for policymakers to decrease the burden of liabilities is inflation; the current political climate increases the odds of that outcome. Chart I-11Weak Core Chart I-12Record Debt, Everywhere   Households in the G-10 and emerging markets are angry. Growing inequalities, coupled with income immobility, have created dissatisfaction with the economic system (Chart I-13). Before the GFC, US households could gorge on debt to support their spending patterns, and inequalities went unnoticed. After the crisis revealed weakness in the household sector, banks tightened their credit standards and consumption slowed, constrained by a paltry expansion of the median household income. As a consequence, the American public increasingly supports left-wing economic policies (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Inequalities + Immobility = Anger Chart I-14The US Population's Shift To The Left COVID-19 is exacerbating the population’s discontent and highlighting economic disparities. The recession is hitting poor households in the US harder than the general population or highly skilled white-collar employees who can easily telecommute. Millennials, the largest demographic group in the US, are also irate. Their lifetime earnings were already lagging that of their parents because most millennials entered the job market in the aftermath of the GFC.1 Their income and balance sheet prospects were beginning to improve just as the pandemic shock struck. Finally, in response to the lockdowns and school closures caused by COVID-19, young families with children have to juggle permanent childcare and daily work demands from employers, resulting in a lack of separation between home and office.2  Economic populism will generate a negative supply shock, which will push up prices (Diagram I-1). BCA has espoused the theme of de-globalization since 20143 and COVID-19 will accelerate this trend. Firms do not want fragile supply chains that fall victim to random shocks; instead, they are looking to diversify their sources (Chart I-15). Additionally, workers and households want protection from foreign competition and perceived unfair trade practices. This sentiment is evident in a lack of trust toward China (Chart I-16). China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business (Chart I-17). Last year’s Sino-US trade war was a precursor of events to come. Diagram I-1The Inflationary Impact Of A Stifled Supply Side Chart I-15COVID-19 Accelerates The Desire To Repatriate Production Chart I-16China As A Political Piñata Chart I-17The Cost Of Doing International Business Will Rise Chart I-18A Problem For Productivity The rate of capital stock accumulation does not bode well for the supply side of the economy. Productivity trails the path of capex, with a long time lag. The 10-year moving average of non-residential investment in the US bottomed three years ago. Its subsequent uptick should enhance average productivity. However, the growth of the real net capital stock per employee remains weak and will not strengthen because companies are curtailing spending in the recession. Moreover, the efficiency of the capital stock is well below its long-term average and probably will not mend if supply chains are made less efficient. These factors are negative for productivity and thus, the capacity to expand the supply side of the economy (Chart I-18). Finally, a significant share of capital stock is stranded and uneconomical. The airline industry is a good example. Going forward, regulations will keep the middle row seats empty. Fewer filled seats imply that the capital stock has lost significant value, which creates a negative supply shock for the industry. To break even, airlines will have to raise the price of fares. IATA estimates that fares will increase by 43%, 49% and 54% on North American, European and Asian routes, respectively (Table I-1). The same analysis can be applied to restaurants, hotels, cinemas, etc. – industries that will have to curtail their supplies and change their practices in response to COVID-19. Table I-1The Inflationary Impact Of Supply Cuts Chat I-19Pandemics Boost Wages While rising populism will hurt the supply side of the economy, it will also hike demand. Redistribution is an outcome of populism. Corporate tax hikes hurt rich households that receive more than 50% of their income from profits. High marginal tax rates on high earners will also curtail their disposable income. Shifting a bigger share of national income to the middle class will depress the savings rate and boost demand. It is estimated that the middle class’s marginal propensity to spend is 90% compared with 60% for richer households. In fact, in the past 40 years, the shift in income distribution has curtailed demand by 3% of GDP. Pandemics also increase real wages. Òscar Jordà, Sanjay Singh, and Alan Taylor demonstrated that European real wages accelerated following pandemics (Chart I-19). Fewer willing workers contributed to the climb in real wages by decreasing the supply of labor. Higher real wages are positive for consumption. China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business. Populism will also put upward pressure on public spending. Governments globally and in the US are bailing out the private sector to an even larger extent than they did after the GFC. Discontent with expanding inequalities and the perceived lack of accountability of the corporate sector4 will push the government to be more involved in economic management than it was after 2008. Moreover, the post-2008 environment showed that austerity was negative for private sector income growth and the economic welfare of the middle class (Chart I-20). Thus, government spending and deficits as a share of GDP will be structurally higher for the coming decade. Higher deficits mechanically boost aggregate demand which is inflationary if the advance of aggregate supply is sluggish. Chat I-20Austerity Hurts Central banks will likely enable these inflationary dynamics. The Fed knows that it has missed its objective by a cumulative 4% since former Chairman Ben Bernanke set an official inflation target of 2% in 2012. Thus, it has lost credibility in its ability to generate 2% inflation, which is why the 10-year breakeven rate stands at 1.1% and not within the 2.3%-2.5% range that is consistent with its mandate. Moreover, the Fed is worried that the immediate deflationary impact of COVID-19 will further depress inflation expectations and reinforce low realized inflation. This logic partly explains why the Fed currently recommends more stimulus and the Federal Open Market Committee will be reluctant to remove accommodation anytime soon. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment. Central banks may fall victim to growing populism. Both the Democrats and Republicans want control over the US Fed. If Congress changes the Fed’s mandate, there would be great consequences for inflation. Prior to the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, the Fed’s mandate was to foster full employment conditions without any explicit mention of inflation. Therefore, the Fed kept the unemployment rate well below NAIRU for most of the post-war period. This tight labor market was a key ingredient behind the inflationary outbreak of the 1970s. After the reform act explicitly imposed a price stability directive on top of the Fed’s employment mandate, the unemployment rate spent a much larger share of time above NAIRU, which contributed to the structural decline in inflation after 1982 (Chart I-21). Chat I-21The Fed's Mandate Matters Finally, demographics will also feed inflationary pressures. The global support ratio peaked in 2014 as the number of workers per dependent decreased due to ageing of the population in the West and China (Chart I-22). A declining support ratio depresses the growth of the supply side of the economy because the dependents continue to consume. In today’s world, dependents are retirees, who have higher healthcare spending needs. This healthcare spending will accrue additional government spending. Moreover, it will continue to push up healthcare inflation, which will contribute to higher overall inflation (Chart I-23). Chat I-22Demographics: From Deflation To Inflation Chat I-23Aging Will Feed Healthcare Inflation   Bottom Line: COVID-19 has highlighted inequalities in the population and will accelerate a move toward populism that started four years ago. Consequently, the supply side of the economy will grow more slowly than it did in prior decades, while greater government interventions and redistributionist policies will boost aggregate demand. Additionally, monetary policy will probably stay easy for too long and demographic factors will compound the supply/demand mismatch. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment, but will not surge to 1970s levels. Investment Implications Chat I-24Breakevens Will Listen To Commodities Extremely accommodative economic policy and a shift to higher inflation will dominate asset markets for the next five years or more. Breakevens in the G-10 are pricing in permanently subdued inflation for the coming decade, which creates a large re-pricing opportunity if inflation troughs when the labor market reaches full employment. Investors cannot wait for inflation to turn the corner to bet on higher breakevens. After the GFC, core CPI bottomed in October 2010, but US breakevens hit their floor at 0.15% in December 2008. Instead, a rebound in commodity prices and a turnaround in the global economic outlook may signal when investors should buy breakevens (Chart I-24). Chat I-25Deleterious US Balance Of Payments Dynamics A repricing of inflation expectations will depress real rates. Central banks want to see inflation expectations normalize towards 2.3%-2.5% before signaling an end to accommodation. Moreover, political pressures and high debt loads will likely loosen their reaction functions to higher breakeven. As a result, real interest rates will decline because nominal ones will not rise by as much as inflation expectations. This is exactly what central banks want to achieve because it will foster a stronger recovery. Our US fixed-income strategists favor TIPS over nominal Treasurys. The dollar will probably depreciate in the post-COVID-19 environment. As we wrote last month, the US is the most aggressive reflator among major economies. The twin deficit will expand while US real rates will remain depressed. This is very negative for the USD, especially in an environment where the US money supply is outpacing global money supply (Chart I-25).5 Additionally, Chinese reflation will stimulate global industrial production, which normally hurts the dollar. EM currencies are cheap enough that long-term investors should begin to bet on them (Chart I-26), especially if global inflation structurally shifts higher. Precious metals win from the combination of higher inflation, lower real rates and a weaker dollar. However, silver is more attractive than gold. Unlike the yellow metal, it trades at a discount to the long-term inflation trend (Chart I-27). Moreover, silver has more industrial uses, especially in the solar panel and computing areas. Thus, the post-COVID-19 recovery and the need to double up supply chains will boost industrial demand for silver and lift its price relative to gold. Our FX strategists recommend selling the gold-to-silver ratio.6 Chat I-26Cheap EM FX Chat I-27Silver Is The Superior Inflation Hedge   Chat I-28Still Time To Favor Stocks Over Bonds Investors should favor stocks over bonds. This statement is more an indictment of the poor value of bonds and their lack of defense against rising inflation than a structural endorsement of stocks. The equity risk premium is elevated. To make this call, we need to account for the lack of stationarity of this variable and adjust for the expected growth rate of earnings. Nonetheless, once those factors are accounted for, our ERP indicator continues to flash a buy signal in favor of equities at the expense of bonds (Chart I-28). Moreover, bonds tend to underperform stocks when inflation trends up for a long time (Table I-2).   Table I-2Rising Inflation Flatters Stocks Over Bonds Chart I-29Bonds Are Prohibitively Expensive In absolute terms, G-7 government bonds are also vulnerable, both tactically and structurally. They are overbought and currently trade at their greatest premium to fair value since Q4 2009 and Q1 1986, two periods followed by sharp rebounds in yields (Chart I-29). Moreover, the previous experience with QE programs shows that even if real rates diminish, the reflationary impact of aggressive monetary policy on breakeven rates is enough to increase nominal interest rates (Chart I-30). Additionally, as our European Investment Strategy team indicates, bond yields are close to their practical lower bound, which creates a negative skew to their return profile.7 This asymmetric return distribution destroys their ability to hedge equity risk going forward, making this asset class less appealing to investors. This problem is particularly salient in Europe and Japan. A lower dollar, which is highly reflationary for global growth, will likely catalyze the rise in yields.   Chart I-30QE Will Lift Breakevens And Yields As long as real rates remain under downward pressure, the window to own stocks remains open, even if stocks continue to churn. Equities are expensive, but when yields are taken into consideration, their adjusted P/E is in line with the historical average (Chart I-31). Moreover, periods of weak growth associated with lower real interest rates can foster a large expansion in multiples (Chart I-32). Chart I-31Low Bond Yields Allow High Stock Multiples Chart I-32Multiples Will Rise Further As The Fed Floods The World With Low Rates Whether to have faith in stocks in absolute terms on a long-term basis is complicated by our view on inflation and populism. Strong inflation will increase nominal rates. Moreover, low productivity coupled with higher real wages, less-efficient supply chains and higher taxes will accentuate the margin compression that higher inflation typically creates. Thus, equities are expected to generate poor real returns over the long term, even if they beat bonds. Chart I-33Tech EPS Leadership Tech stocks are another structural problem for equities. Including Amazon, Google and Facebook, tech stocks account for 41% of the S&P 500’s market cap. As our US Equity Strategy service explains, wherever tech goes, so does the US market.8 Tech stocks are the current market darling. Today, the tech sector is the closest thing to a safe-haven in the mind of market participants, because a post-COVID-19 environment will favor tech spending (telecommuting, e-commerce, cloud computing, etc.). The problem for long-term investors is that this view is the most consensus view. Already, investors expect the tech sector to generate the highest EPS outperformance relative to the rest of the S&P 500 in more than 15 years (Chart I-33). Moreover, in a low-yield environment, investors are particularly willing to bid up the multiples of growth stocks such as tech equities because low interest rates result in muted discount factors for long-term cash flows. When should investors begin betting against the tech sector? Backed by a powerful narrative, tech stocks are evolving into a mania. Yet, contrarian investors understand, being too early to sell a mania can be deadly. Bond yields should not be relied on to signal an end to the bubble. During most of the 1990s, tech would outperform the market when Treasury yields declined. However, when the tech outperformance became manic, yields became irrelevant. From the fall of 1998 to the beginning of 2000, 10-year yields rose from 4.2% to 6.8%, yet the tech sector outperformed the S&P 500 by 127%. More recently, yields rose from 1.33% in the summer of 2016 to 3.25% in November 2018, but tech outperformed the broader market by 39%.   Investors should favor stocks over bonds. Instead, higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Since the 1990s, higher core inflation has led periods of tech underperformance by roughly six months. This relationship also held at the apex of the tech bubble in the second half of the 1990s (Chart I-34). Relative tech forward EPS suffers when core inflation rises, as the rest of the S&P 500 is more geared to higher nominal GDP growth. In essence, if nominal growth is less scarce, then the need to bid up growth stocks diminishes. Moreover, the dollar will likely be the first early signal because it leads nominal GDP. As a result, a weak dollar leads to a contraction in tech relative multiples by approximately 9 months (Chart I-35). Chart I-34Tech Hates Inflation... Chart I-35...And A Soft Dollar   We recommend long-term investors shift their portfolios toward industrial equities when inflation turns the corner. As a corollary, the low exposure of European and Japanese stocks to the tech sector suggests these cheap bourses will finally reverse their more-than-a-decade-long underperformance at the same time. This strategy means that even if the S&P 500 generates negative real returns during the coming decade, investors could still eke out positive returns from their stock holdings. Higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Chart I-36The Time For Commodities Is Coming Back Finally, commodities plays are also set to shine in the coming decade. Commodities are very cheap and oversold relative to stocks (Chart I-36). Commodities outperform equities in an environment where inflation rises, real rates decline and the dollar depreciates. Consequently, materials and energy stocks may be winners. As a corollary, Latin American and Australian equities should also reverse their decade-long underperformance when inflation and the dollar turn the corner. This month's Section II Special Report is an in depth study of the Spanish Flu pandemic, written by our colleague Amr Hanafy and also published in BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service. Amr thoroughly analyses the evolution of the 100-year old pandemic and which measures mattered most to contain the virus and allow a return to economic normality. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 28, 2020 Next Report: June 25, 2020 II. Lessons From The Spanish Flu What Can 1918/1919 Teach Us About COVID-19?   “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana – 1905 Chart II-1Coronavirus: As Contagious But Not As Deadly As Spanish Flu Today’s economy is very different to that of 100 years ago. Many countries then were in the middle of World War I (which ended in November 1918). The characteristics of the Spanish Flu which struck the world in 1918 and 1919 were also different to this year’s pandemic. COVID-19 is almost as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but it is much less deadly (Chart II-1). Healthcare systems and treatments today are far more advanced than those of a century ago: many people who caught Spanish flu died of complications caused by bacterial pneumonia, given the absence of antibiotics. Influenza viruses tend to mutate rapidly: the influenza virus in 1918 first mutated to become far more virulent in its second wave, and then to become much milder. Coronaviruses have a “proofreading” capacity and mutate less easily.9  Nevertheless, an analysis of the pandemic of 100 years ago provides a number of insights into the current crisis, particularly now that policymakers are easing social-distancing rules to help the economy, even at the risk of more cases and deaths. Among the lessons of 1918-1919: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) do lower mortality rates. The speed at which NPIs are implemented and the period of implementation are as important as the number of measures taken. Removing or relaxing measures too early can lead to a renewed rise in mortality rates. It is hard to compare current fiscal and monetary policies to those taken during the 1918 pandemic, since policy in both areas was already easy before the pandemic as a result of the world war. However, a severe pandemic would certainly call for a wartime-like fiscal and monetary response. The economy was negatively impacted by the pandemic in 1918-19 but, despite the shock to industrial activity and employment, the economy subsequently rebounded quickly, in a V-shaped recovery. Introduction Predicting how the economy will react to the COVID-19 pandemic is hard. Governments and policymakers face multiple uncertainties: How effective are different containment measures? Will cases and deaths rebound quickly if lockdown measures are eased? When will the coronavirus disappear? When will a vaccine be ready? With an event unprecedented in the experience of anyone alive today, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from history. For this Special Report, we attempt to draw some parallels between the current situation and the 1918-19 Spanish flu. We focus on the different containment efforts implemented, the role that fiscal and monetary policies played, the impact on markets and the economy, and whether history can throw any light on how the COVID-19 crisis might pan out. The 1918 Spanish Flu Chart II-2The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal in modern history. Soldiers returning from World War I helped spread the pandemic across the globe. The first recorded case is believed to have been in an army camp in Kansas. While there is no official count, researchers estimate that about 500 million people contracted the virus globally, with a mortality rate of between 5% and 10%. The pandemic occurred over three waves in 1918 and 1919 – the first in the spring of 1918, the second (and most deadly) in the fall of 1918, and the third in spring 1919 (Chart II-2). In the US alone, official data estimate that around 500,000 deaths (or over 25% of all deaths) in 1918 and 1919 were caused by pneumonia and influenza.10 The pandemic moved swiftly to Europe and reached Asia by mid-1918, but became more lethal only towards the end of the year (Map II-1).11 Map II-1The Spread Of Influenza Through Europe Initially, scientists were puzzled by the origin of the influenza and its biology. It was not until a decade later, in the early 1930s, that Richard Shope isolated the particular influenza virus from infected pigs, confirming that a virus caused the Spanish Flu, not a bacterium as most had thought. Many of those who caught this strain of influenza died as a result of their lungs filling with fluid in a severe form of pneumonia. In reporting death rates, then, it is considered best practice to include deaths from both influenza and pneumonia. The first wave had almost all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit of a highly contagious strain. Symptoms were similar and mortality rates were only slightly higher than a normal influenza. The first wave went largely unnoticed given that deaths from pneumonia were common then. US public health reports show that the disease received little attention until it reappeared in a more severe form in Boston in September 1918.12 Most countries did not begin investigating and reporting cases until the second wave was underway (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Most Countries Began Reporting Only When The Second Wave Hit This second wave – which was more lethal because the virus had mutated – had a unique characteristic. Unlike the typical influenza mortality curve – which is usually “U” shaped, affecting mainly the very young and elderly – the 1918 influenza strain had a “W”-shaped mortality curve – impacting young adults as well as old people (Chart II-4). This pattern was evident in all three waves, but most pronounced during the second wave. The reason for this was that the infection caused by the influenza became hyperactive, producing a “cytokine storm” – when mediators secreted from the immune system result in severe inflammation.13 Simply put, as the virus became virulent, the body’s immune system overworked to fight it. Younger people, with strong immune systems, suffered most from this phenomenon. Chart II-4A Unique Characteristic: Impacting Younger Adults By the summer of 1919, the pandemic was over, since those who had been infected had either died or recovered, therefore developing immunity. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if “herd immunity” was achieved. However, some historical accounts and research – particularly for army groups in the US and the UK – suggest that those exposed to the disease in the first mild wave were not affected during the second more severe wave.14 The failure to define the causative pathogen at the time made development of a vaccine impossible. Nevertheless, some treatments and remedies showed modest success. These varied from using a serum – obtained from people who had recovered, who therefore had antibodies against the disease – to simple symptomatic drugs and various oils and herbs. The Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) Chart II-5Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough What we today call “social distancing” showed positive effects during the 1918-19 pandemic. These included measures very similar to those applied today: school closures, isolation and quarantines, bans on some sorts of public gatherings, and more. However, there were few travel bans. The number of passengers carried during the months of the pandemic did noticeably decline though (Chart II-5). Table II-1, based on research by Hatchett, Mecher and Lipsitch, breaks down NPIs by type for 17 major US cities. Most cities implemented a wide range of interventions. But it was not only the type of NPIs implemented that made a difference, but also the speed and length of implementation. Further research by Markel, Lipman and Navarro based on 43 US cities shows that the median number of days between the first reported influenza case and the first NPI implementation was over two weeks. The median period during which various NPIs were implemented was about six weeks (Table II-2). Table II-1Measures Applied Then Are Very Similar To Those Applied Today Table II-2NPIs Were Implemented Only For Short Periods Markel, Lipman and Navarro's findings show that a rapid public-health response was an important factor in reducing the mortality rate by slowing the rate of infection, what we now refer to as “flattening the curve.” There were major differences in cities’ policies: both the speed at which they implement NPIs, and the length of the implementation period. Chart II-6 shows that: Cities that acted quickly to implement NPIs slowed the rate of infections and deaths (Chart II-6, panel 1) Cities that acted quickly had lower mortality rates from influenza and pneumonia (Chart II-6, panel 2) Cities that implemented NPIs for longer periods had fewer deaths (Chart II-6, panel 3) Chart II-7 quantifies the number of NPIs taken, the time it took to implement the measures, and the length of NPIs to gauge policy strictness. Cities with stricter enforcement had lower death rates than those with laxer measures. Chart II-6Fast Response And Longer Implementation Led To Fewer Deaths... Chart II-7...So Did Policy Strictness     For example, Kansas City, less than a week after its first reported case, had implemented quarantine and isolation measures. By the second week, schools, churches, and other entertainment facilities closed. Schools reopened a month later (in early November) but quickly shut again until early January 1919. While we do not have definitive dates on when each NPI was lifted, some sort of protective measures in Kansas City were in place for almost 170 days. By contrast, Philadelphia, one of the cities hardest hit by Spanish Flu, took more than a month to implement any measures. Its tardiness meant that it reached a peak mortality rate much more quickly: in 13 days compared to 31 days for Kansas City. Even after the first reported case, the Liberty Loans Parade was still held on September 28, 1918 – with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of spectators might be vulnerable to infection.15,16 It was not until a few days later that institutions were closed and a ban on public gatherings was imposed. Many other cities also held a Liberty Loans Parade, including Pittsburgh and Washington DC, but Philadelphia’s was the deadliest. Studies also show that relaxing interventions too early could be as damaging as implementing them too late. St. Louis, for example, was quick to lift restrictions and suffered particularly badly in the second wave as a result. It later reinstated NPIs up until end of February 1919. Other cities that eased restrictions too early (San Francisco and Minneapolis, for example) also suffered from a second swift, albeit milder, increase in weekly excess death rates from pneumonia and influenza (Chart II-8). Chart II-8Relaxing Lockdown Measures Too Early Can Lead To A Second Rise In Deaths... Chart II-9...And So Can Highly Effective Measures Of course, NPIs cannot be implemented indefinitely. A recent research paper by Bootsma and Ferguson raises the point that suppressing a pandemic may not be the best strategy because it just leaves some people susceptible to infection later. They argue that highly effective social distancing measures, which allow a susceptible pool of people to reintegrate into society when the measures are lifted, are likely to lead to a resurgence in infections and fatalities in a second peak (Chart II-9).17 They suggest an optimal level of control measures to reduce R (the infection rate) to a value that makes a significant portion of the population immune once measures are lifted.  The Impact Of The Spanish Flu On The Economy And Markets How did the Spanish Flu pandemic affect the economy? Many pandemic researchers ignore the official recession identified by the NBER during the months of the pandemic (between August 1918 and March 1919).18 The reason is that most of the evidence indicates that the economic effects of the 1918-19 pandemic were short-term and relatively mild.19 Disentangling drivers of the economy is, indeed, tricky given that WW1 ended in November 1918. However, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact of the pandemic since the war had such a big impact on the economy, as well as investor and public sentiment. Various research papers support the fact that, while the pandemic did indeed have an adverse effect on the economy, NPIs did not just depress mortality rates, but also sped the post-pandemic economic recovery.20 Research by Correia, Sergio, and Luck showed that the areas most severely affected by the pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity, whereas cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively, experienced a relative increase in economic activity post the pandemic.21 Their findings are based on the increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic compared to before it (1919 versus 1914). However, note that the rise of manufacturing payrolls in 1919 was high everywhere given the return of soldiers post-WWI. The researchers also note that those cities hardest hit by the pandemic also saw a negative impact on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets. Chart II-10Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Because Spanish flu disproportionately killed younger adults, many families lost their breadwinner. In economic terms, this implies both a negative supply shock and negative demand shock. If fewer employees are available to produce a certain good, supply will fall. The same reduction in employment also implies reduced income and therefore lower purchasing power. Both cases will result in a decrease in output. However, the change in prices depends on the decline of supply relative to demand. In 1918-19, the impact was disinflationary: demand declined by more than supply, and both spending and consumer prices fell during the pandemic (Chart II-10). US factory employment fell by over 8% between March 1918 and March 1919 – the period from the beginning of the first wave until the end of the second wave. It is important to note, however, that few businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic years (Chart II-11). Additionally, the November 1918 Federal Reserve Bulletin highlighted that many cities, including New York, Kansas City, and Richmond, experienced a shortage of labor due to the influenza.22 Factory employment in New York fell by over 10% during this period. The link between the labor shortages and the decline in industrial production is unclear. Industrial activity in the US peaked just before the second wave, contracting by over 20% during the second wave (Chart II-12). Various industries reported disruptions: automobile production fell by 67%, anthracite coal production and shipments fell by around 45%, and railroad freight revenues declined by over seven billion ton-miles (Chart II-12, panels 2, 3 & 4). However, some of this decline is attributed to falling defense production after the war. Chart II-11Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Chart II-12Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly   Chart II-13The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic Chart II-14Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started The equity market moved in a broad range in 1915-1919 and fell sharply only ahead of the 1920 recession (Chart II-13). Seemingly, stock market participants were more focused on the war than the pandemic. The lack of reporting of the pandemic could have contributed to this: newspapers were encouraged to avoid carrying bad news for reasons of patriotism and did not widely cover the pandemic until late 1918.23 The Federal Reserve played an active role in funding the government’s spending on the war, and so monetary policy was very easy during the pandemic – but for other reasons. The Fed used its position as a lender to the banking system to facilitate war bond sales.16 Interest rates were cut in 1914 and 1915 even before the US entered the war. The US economy had been in recession between January 1913 and December 1914. Policy rates remained low throughout 1916 and 1917 and slightly rose in 1918 and 1919. It was not until 1920 that Federal Reserve Bank System tightened policy rapidly to choke off inflation, which accelerated to over 20% in mid-1920 – rising inflation being a common post-war phenomenon (Chart II-14). The Lessons Of 1918-19 For The Coronavirus Pandemic Non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be implemented until a vaccine, effective therapeutic drugs, or mass testing is available. Relaxing measures prematurely is as damaging as a tardy reaction to the pandemic. Reacting quickly and imposing multiple measures for longer periods not only reduces mortality rates, but also improves economic outcomes post-crisis. The economy suffers in the short-term: supply and demand shocks lead to lower output. The demand shock however is larger leading to lower prices and disinflationary pressures, at least during and immediately after the pandemic.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we maintained a positive disposition toward stocks, especially at the expense of government bonds. The global economy may be in the midst of its most severe contraction since the Great Depression, but betting against stocks is too dangerous when fiscal and monetary policy are both as easy as they are today. In essence, don’t fight the Fed. This view remains in place, even if the short-term risk/reward ratio for holding stocks is deteriorating. On a cyclical basis, the same factors that made us willing buyers of stocks remain broadly in place. Stocks are not as cheap as they were in late March, but monetary conditions have only eased further as real interest rates weakened. Additionally, our Speculation Indicator has eased, which indicates that contrary to many commentators’ perceptions, speculation is not rampant. Confirming this intuition, the equity risk premium remains elevated (even when one takes into account its lack of stationarity) and expected growth rates of earnings are still very low. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator is finally flashing a strong buy signal. Tactically, equities are still overbought. We have had four 5% or more corrections since March 23. More of them are in the cards. However, the most likely outcome for the S&P 500 this summer is a churning pattern, not a major downward move below 2700. The median stock is still 26% below its August 2018 low and only a fraction of equities on the NYSE trade above their 30-week moving average. These indicators do not scream that a major correction is on the horizon, especially when policy is as accommodative as it is today. We continue to recommend investors take advantage of the supportive backdrop for stocks by buying equities relative to bonds. In contrast to global bourses, government bonds are still massively overbought on a cyclical basis and trading at their largest premium to fair value since Q4 2008 and late 1985. Additionally, the vast sums of both monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy should lift inflation expectations and thus, bond yields. The yield curve is therefore slated to steepen further. Since we last published, the dollar has not meaningfully depreciated, but the DXY is trying to breakdown while our composite technical indicator is making lower highs. It is too early to gauge whether the recent rebound in the IDR, the MXN, or the ZAR is anything more than an oversold bounce, but if it were to continue, it would indicate that the expensive greenback is starting to buckle under the weight of the quickly expanding twin deficit. The widening in the current account deficit that will result from extraordinarily loose fiscal policy means that the large increase in money supply by the Fed will leak out of the US economy. This process is highly bearish for the dollar. Ultimately, the timing of the dollar’s weakness will all boil down to global growth. As signs are building up that global growth is bottoming, odds are rising that the dollar will finally breakdown. Get ready for a meaningful downward move over the coming months. Finally, commodities seem to be gaining traction. The Continuous Commodity Index’s A/D line is quickly moving up and our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly rising from extremely oversold levels. Oil will hold the key for the broad complex. Oil supply has started to adjust lower and oil demand is set to improve starting June/July as the global economy re-opens, fueled with massive amounts of stimulus. As a result, inventories should start to meaningfully decline this summer, which will support the recent recovery in oil prices. If oil can rebound further, industrial commodities will follow. Finally, gold is a mixed bag in the near term. The dollar is set to weaken significantly and inflation breakevens to move higher, which will mitigate the negative impact of declining risk aversion. Silver is a superior play to gold as it will benefit from a recovery in global growth. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Reid Cramer et al., The Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap, Divergent Trajectories, Weak Balance Sheets, and Implications for Social Policy, New America, Oct 2019. 2 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-normal-amid-coronavirus-working-from-home-while-schooling-the-kids-11584437400 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient," dated June 27, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "May 2020," dated April 30, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "A Few Trades Amidst A Pandemic," dated May 22, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "European Investors Left Defenceless," dated May 21, 2020, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Debunking Earnings," dated May 19, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see the Q&A with immunologist and Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, published by BCA Research April 1st 2020: BCA Research Special Report, “Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers,” available at bcaresearch.com 10 Please see “Leading Cause of Death, 1990-1998,” CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 Please see Ansart S, Pelat C, Boelle PY, Carrat F, Flahault A, Valleron AJ, “Mortality burden of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in Europe,” NCBI. 12 Please see Public Health Report, vol. 34, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1919. 13 Please see Qiang Liu, Yuan-hong Zhou, Zhan-qiu Yang Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan; 13(1): 3–10. 14 Please see Shope, R. (1958) Public Health Rep. 73, 165–178. 15 The Liberty Loans Parade was intended to promote the sale of government bonds to pay for World War One. 16 Please see Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M (2007) "Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic,"PNAS 104: 7582–7587. 17 Please see Bootsma M, Ferguson N, “The Effect Of Public Health Measures On The 1918 Influenza Pandemic In U.S. Cities,” PNAS (2007). 18 Please see https://www.nber.org/cycles.html 19 Please see https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/res…12               Please see https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/03/fight-the-pandemic-save-the-economy-lessons-from-the-1918-flu.html. 20 Please see Correia, Sergio and Luck, Stephan and Verner, Emil, Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu (March 30, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561560 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560. 21 Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- and Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1935. "November 1918," Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1918). 22 Please see https://newrepublic.com/article/157094/americas-newspapers-covered-pandemic. 23 Please see https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_role_during_wwi.