Europe

Dear client, In lieu of our regular weekly report next week, we will hold a webcast on Thursday at 10:00 am ET discussing both tactical and strategic currency considerations. The format will be a short presentation, followed by a Q&A session. We look forward to engaging with you. Kind regards, Chester Ntonifor Vice President, Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights Go short the Gold/Silver ratio (GSR). Hold a basket of NOK and SEK against a basket of the dollar and euro. Go long sterling. Feature Chart I-1The Dollar And Business Cycles A Few Trades Amidst A Pandemic A Few Trades Amidst A Pandemic When constructing a basket of high-conviction positions, the starting point is usually the framework used to build the portfolio. Ours is through a three-factor lens. The first lens determines what macroeconomic environment we are operating in. Think of a four-quadrant matrix, with growth on one axis and inflation on the other. Intuitively, the dollar should do best when global growth is decelerating and inflation is falling. The climatic expression of this is a deflationary bust, when all bets are off and the dollar is king. On the other side of the spectrum, the dollar should weaken as global growth rebounds (Chart I-1). The second lens is valuation. Specifically, as the drop in cyclical currencies in a deflationary bust approach a capitulation phase, value begins to put a cushion under deteriorating fundamentals. In our previous work, we showed that foreign exchange value-trading strategies based on PPP are profitable over the long term.1  Finally, technical indicators are our third lens for two reasons. First, they are the most powerful indicators for short-term trades. Second, they act as a bridge between bombed-out valuations and a subsequent improvement in macro fundamentals. For example, a saucer-shaped bottom in a cyclical currency can usually be a prelude to a U-shaped economic recovery. A high-conviction trade is one that ticks all three boxes or is agnostic to the first but has a powerful signal from both the second and third. Using this framework, we suggest two trades this week. Go Short The Gold/Silver Ratio When looking at our four-quadrant matrix, it is clear that the dollar tends to rise during a downturn, and fall early in the cycle. Intra-cycle performance is more nuanced. With both first- and second-quarter GDP likely to contract severely around the world, growth is likely to bounce back later this year if economies stay open. This should, ceteris paribus, lead to a weaker dollar. A bearish view on the dollar can be expressed by being short the GSR. The Gold/Silver ratio (GSR) tends to track the US dollar (Chart I-2), so a bearish view on the dollar can be expressed by being short the GSR. It is well known that most of the time, bullion is inversely correlated to the US dollar, not only due to the numeraire effect but also as competing monetary standards. Given that silver tends to rise and fall more explosively than the price of gold (Chart I-3), it makes sense that the GSR should inversely track the greenback. Part of the reason for silver’s explosive – albeit lagged – response is that the silver market is thinner and more volatile, with open interest in futures about one-third of gold. Chart I-2GSR And The Dollar GSR And The Dollar GSR And The Dollar Chart I-3Silver Has Explosive Rallies Silver Has Explosive Rallies Silver Has Explosive Rallies The potency of the GSR is in its leading properties, as it provides important information on the battleground between easing financial conditions and a pickup in economic (or manufacturing) activity. The GSR tends to rally ahead of an economic slowdown, then peaks when growth is still weak but financial conditions are easy enough to short-circuit any liquidity trap. Silver fabrication demand benefits from new industries such as solar and a flourishing “cloud” orbit – both of which are capturing the new manufacturing landscape. Not surprisingly, the GSR has led the rise and fall of many ASEAN and Latin American currencies that are at the forefront of manufacturing (Chart I-4). Chart I-4GSR, Latam And Asean Currencies GSR, Latam And Asean Currencies GSR, Latam And Asean Currencies A key assumption in a lower GSR is that the global economy fends off a deeper recession, which would otherwise sustain a high and rising ratio. But even if we are wrong and the dollar remains stronger over the next 12-18 months, the valuation cushion from being short the GSR is outstanding. The ratio broke above major overhead resistance at 100 just as the dollar liquidity crunch was intensifying, and is now staging a V-shaped reversal. Historically, these reversals tend to be quick, powerful, and extremely volatile. Unless gold is entering a new paradigm versus silver, the forces of mean reversion should pull the ratio towards 50 (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Big Downside Potential For GSR Big Downside Potential For GSR Big Downside Potential For GSR The next important technical level for silver is the $18-$20-per-ounce zone. This has acted as a strong overhead resistance since 2015, and has provided strong downside support for silver prior to that. If silver is able to punch through this zone, this will help bridge the gap between silver and gold fundamentals. Globally, the world produces 24,201 tons of silver a year and 3,421 tons of gold. That is a supply ratio of 7:1. Meanwhile, the price ratio between gold and silver is 100:1. This seems like a very wide gap, given that the physical supply of silver is in deficit. Bottom Line: We have been flagging the GSR as a key indicator to watch since last year.2 Our sell-stop on the ratio was finally triggered at 100. Place stops at 110, with an initial target of 75. Go Long Sterling, In Addition To NOK And SEK If the dollar is indeed in a renewed downtrend, the most potent beneficiaries of this move will be NOK and SEK. Our basket of long Scandinavian currencies against both the dollar and the euro has a significant margin of safety, even if we are offside on the dollar trend (Chart I-6). The euro will naturally pop on dollar weakness, but a very liquid beneficiary could also be sterling. Trade negotiations between the UK and EU are clearly breaking down. The worst-case scenario is a no-deal Brexit, in which case the pound could significantly decline. The key question would be by how much? Every time there has been maximum pessimism on the pound driven by Brexit fears, the line in the sand has been 1.20.  The first observation is that each time the odds of a “hard” Brexit have risen significantly, the threshold for cable downside has been 1.20. The first occurrence was the aftermath of the UK referendum in 2016. The second episode was when Prime Minister Boris Johnson was elected with a mandate to take the UK out of the EU (Chart I-7). Intuitively, this suggests that every time there has been maximum pessimism on the pound driven by Brexit fears, the line in the sand has been 1.20. Of course, a pandemic can change this dynamic, as we saw with the drop in cable to 1.15 in March, but this move was not isolated to sterling. Chart I-6SEK And NOK Are Attractive SEK and NOK Are Attractive SEK and NOK Are Attractive Chart I-7GBP Has Historically Bottomed At 1.2 GBP Has Historically Bottomed At 1.2 GBP Has Historically Bottomed At 1.2 While a no-deal Brexit is not our base case, it is still instructive to simulate cable downside in the case of  such an event. Given that the last time Britain majorly defected from a union was during the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) crisis in the 1990s, revisiting this episode could be instructive. The episode leading to the collapse of the pound in 1992 has important lessons for today.3 Britain entered the ERM in October of 1990 in an attempt to find a stable nominal anchor. In other words, with high inflation and an overvalued currency, adopting German interest rates was expected to temper inflation and realign the real exchange rate. Fundamental models show the pound as being very cheap. Problems began to surface in June 1992, when the Danes voted no in a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty that included a chapter on the EMU. As doubts towards the progress of a union began to rise, investors started to question where the shadow exchange rate for ERM currencies lay, especially the Italian lira and the Spanish peseta. Britain also massively stepped up its interventions in the foreign exchange market in August of that year, having to borrow excessively to increase reserves. Britain was eventually forced to suspend its membership in the ERM. Herein lies the key differences with today. Support for the euro within member countries is extremely strong. So, while EUR/GBP may have near-term upside, a destabilizing fall in the pound relative to the euro is unlikely. A substantial rise in the EUR/GBP, assuming little euro breakup risk, is a bet on the fact that not only is the pound misaligned versus the German “Deutschemark,” but it is also expensive versus the Italian “Lira” and Spanish “Peseta.” This seems unrealistic. The pound was overvalued as the UK entered the ERM, judging from its real effective exchange rate adjusted for consumer prices. A persistent inflation differential between the UK and Germany had led to significant appreciation in the real rate. That gap is much narrower today (Chart I-8). Moreover, fundamental models show the pound as being very cheap, especially versus the US dollar on both a PPP and productivity basis. During the ERM crisis, most of the adjustment in the pound happened quickly, but a key difference is that it was unanticipated. Foreign exchange markets today are extremely fluid and adjust to expectations quite fast. From its peak, GBP/USD depreciated by 24% by end of October 1992. Peak to trough, cable has fallen by almost 30% today. Given this drop, it is hard to imagine that the probability of a no-deal Brexit is not priced into cable. The real effective exchange rate of the pound is now lower than where it was after the UK exited the ERM in 1992, with a drawdown that has been similar in magnitude (24% in both episodes). In the event a deal is forged, the pound should converge toward the mid-point of its historical real effective exchange rate range, which will pin it at least 15%-20% higher (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Not Much Misalignment In U.K. Prices Today Not Much Misalignment In U.K. Prices Today Not Much Misalignment In U.K. Prices Today Chart I-9Cable Valuation Reflects Brexit Risk Cable Valuation Reflects Brexit Risk Cable Valuation Reflects Brexit Risk Bottom Line: Go long the pound as a trade but maintain tight stops at 1.20. Our limit sell on EUR/GBP was a whisker from being triggered this week at 0.9. While we will respect this level, long-term investors can start slowly shorting the cross.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, “Introducing An FX Trading Model,” dated April 24, 2020 avaiable at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report,  “On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver,” dated October 11, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 Mathias Zurlinden, “The Vulnerability of Pegged Exchange Rates: The British Pound in the ERM,” Economic Research, Vol. 75, No. 5 (September/October 1993). Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been mostly negative: Retail sales fell by 16.4% month-on-month in April, following an 8.3% decrease the previous month. The preliminary Markit manufacturing PMI increased from 36.1 to 39.8 in May. The services PMI also improved from 26.7 to 36.9. The NAHB housing market index increased from 30 to 37 in May. This follows a contraction in building permits by 21% month-on-month in April and a 30% month-on-month drop in housing starts. Initial jobless claims kept rising by 2438K for the week ended May 15th. The DXY index fell by 1% this week. The DXY index has been stuck in a narrow trading range between 98.50 and 101, ever since the Fed’s swap liquidity programs were unveiled. This suggests a stalemate between weak global growth and improving financial conditions. Report Links: Cycles And The US Dollar - May 15, 2020 Capitulation? - April 3, 2020 The Dollar Funding Crisis - March 19, 2020 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been negative: GDP contracted by 3.2% year-on-year in Q1. Employment fell by 0.2% quarter-on-quarter in Q1. The seasonally-adjusted trade surplus narrowed to €23.5 billion from €25.6 billion in March. The current account surplus fell from €37.8 billion to €27.4 billion. The ZEW sentiment index improved from 25.2 to 46 in May. The preliminary Markit manufacturing PMI increased from 33.4 to 39.5 in May. The services PMI also ticked up from 12 to 28.7. The euro increased by 1.7% against the US dollar this week. During a recent speech at the Institute for Monetary and Financial Stability Policy Webinar, the ECB member Philip R. Lane reinforced that the ECB will continue to constantly assess the monetary measures and is fully prepared to further adjust its instruments, which might include increasing the size of the PEPP. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been negative: GDP plunged by 3.4% year-on-year in Q1. Industrial production fell by 5.2% year-on-year in March. Machinery orders fell by 0.7% year-on-year in March, following a 2.4% contraction in February. Exports and imports both fell by 21.9% and 7.2% year-on-year respectively in April. The total trade balance fell from a ¥5.4 billion surplus to a ¥930.4 billion deficit. The preliminary manufacturing PMI fell from 41.9 to 38.4 in May. The Japanese yen fell by 0.9% against the US dollar this week. The Bank of Japan announced on Tuesday that it will hold an emergency policy meeting on Friday, May 22nd, following the bleak GDP data on Monday. Report Links: The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been negative: The unemployment rate slightly decreased from 4% to 3.9% in March. Average earnings including bonuses grew by 2.4% year-on-year. Headline retail price inflation fell from 2.6% year-on-year to 1.5% year-on-year in April. The Markit manufacturing PMI increased from 32.6 to 40.6 in May. The services PMI also improved from 13.4 to 27.8. The British pound increased by 0.9% against the US dollar this week. This week saw the UK selling its long-term government bonds with negative yield for the first time in history. Moreover, the BoE has also not ruled out the possibility of negative interest rates. Please refer to our front section this week for a more detailed analysis on the pound. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been negative: The Westpac leading index fell by 1.5% month-on-month in April. Retail sales plunged by 17.9% month-on-month in April. The preliminary Commonwealth manufacturing PMI slipped from 44.1 to 42.8 in May, while the services PMI increased from 19.5 to 25.5. The Australian dollar appreciated by 2.6% against the US dollar this week. The RBA minutes released this week noted that the Australian economy had been severely affected by the COVID-19, and most of the contraction was expected to occur in the second quarter of 2020. The current economic contraction is unprecedented in the 60-year history of the Australian economy. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been negative: The Manufacturing PMI fell from 53.2 to 26.1 in April. The services PMI also plunged from 52 to 25.9. PPI output prices increased by 0.1% quarter-on-quarter in Q1, while input prices depreciated by 0.3% quarter-on-quarter. House sales plunged by 78.5% year-on-year in April. The New Zealand dollar appreciated by 3.4% against the US dollar this week, making it the best performing G10 currency. The RBNZ indicated that the recent rate cuts have not been transferred via lower mortgage rates or lower retail rates. They have also expressed concerns about a higher mortgage default rate once the 6-month mortgage repayment deferrals expire. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been negative: Headline consumer prices contracted by 0.2% year-on-year in April, falling into deflationary territory for the first time since 2009. Core inflation fell from 1.6% to 1.2% year-on-year in April. Trade sales contracted by 2.2% month-on-month in March.  Existing home sales plunged by 56.8% month-on-month in April, following a 14.3% decrease in March. The Canadian dollar rose by 1.3% against the US dollar this week. Statistics Canada shows that in April, consumer prices deflation is led by transportation, clothing and footwear, which saw yearly declines of 4.1% and 4.4% respectively. However, consumers paid more for food due to higher demand. Rice, eggs and pork prices rose by 9.2%, 8.8%, and 9% year-on-year respectively in April. In addition, household cleaning products and toilet paper prices also surged in April. Report Links: More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - May 1, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been negative: Producer and import prices contracted by 4% year-on-year in April, following a 2.7% yearly decrease in March. Total sight deposits continued to rise from CHF 669.1 billion to CHF 673.5 billion last week. The Swiss franc appreciated by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, KOF published a new forecast for Switzerland in May, which now forecasts the economy to rebound gradually once the current lockdown restrictions are eased. However, tax revenues in Switzerland are expected to fall by over CHF 5.5 billion this year and CHF 25 billion over the next years. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been negative: Exports plunged by 24% year-on-year to NOK 58.8 billion in April. Imports fell by 10.8% year-on-year to NOK 55.5 billion. The trade surplus fell by 78.5% year-on-year to NOK 3.2 billion. The Norwegian krone appreciated by 3.2% against the US dollar this week, fuelled by the recent oil prices recovery. Statistics Norway showed that the recent plunge in exports was mostly led by crude oil, natural gas, and fish exports. Natural gas condensates exports, on the other hand, rose by 44.7% year-on-year in April. That being said, we remain long the Norwegian krone from the valuation perspective. Report Links: A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been negative: Industry capacity fell slightly from 89.4% to 89.2% in Q1. Total number of employees grew by 0.3% year-on-year in Q1, compared with a 0.4% growth the previous quarter. The Swedish krona appreciated by 2.8% against the US dollar this week. In the latest Financial Stability Report released this Wednesday, the Riksbank highlighted that “if the crisis becomes prolonged, the risks to financial stability will increase”. Moreover, the Bank stated that they are ready to contribute by providing the necessary liquidity to help banks maintaining sufficient credit supply. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights German bunds and Swiss bonds are no longer haven assets. The haven assets are the Swiss franc, Japanese yen, and US T-bonds. Gold is less effective as a haven asset. During this year’s coronavirus crash, the gold price fell by -7 percent. As such, our haven asset of choice for a further demand shock would be the 30-year T-bond, whose price rose by 10 percent during the crash. Technology and healthcare are the two sectors most likely to contain haven equities. Fractal trade: long Polish zloty versus euro. German Bunds And Swiss Bonds Are No Longer Haven Assets Chart of the WeekGold Is Tracking The US 30-Year T-Bond Price... But The T-Bond Is The Better Haven Asset Gold Is Tracking The US 30-Year T-Bond Price... But The T-Bond Is The Better Haven Asset Gold Is Tracking The US 30-Year T-Bond Price... But The T-Bond Is The Better Haven Asset European investors have been left defenceless. German bunds and Swiss bonds used to be the safest of haven assets. You used to be able to bet your bottom dollar – or euro or Swiss franc for that matter – that the bond prices would rally during a demand shock. Not in 2020. When the global economy and stock markets collapsed from mid-February through mid-March, the DAX slumped by -39 percent. Yet the German 10-year bund price, rather than rallying, fell by -2 percent, while the Swiss 10-year bond price fell by -4 percent.1  The lower limit to bond yields is around -1 percent. The reason is that German and Swiss bond yields are close to the practical lower limit to yields, which we believe is around -1 percent (Chart I-2). This means that German and Swiss bond prices cannot rise much, though they can theoretically fall a lot. Chart I-2German And Swiss Bond Yields Are Near Their Practical Lower Bound German And Swiss Bond Yields Are Near Their Practical Lower Bound German And Swiss Bond Yields Are Near Their Practical Lower Bound The behaviour of German bunds and Swiss bonds during the current crisis contrasts with previous episodes of market stress when their yields were unconstrained by the -1 percent lower limit. During the heat of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the 10-year bund price rallied by 12 percent. Likewise, during the frenzy of the global financial crisis in 2008, the 10-year bund price rallied by 7 percent (Chart I-3 - Chart I-5). Chart I-3German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2008 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2008 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2008 Crash Chart I-4German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2011 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2011 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2011 Crash Chart I-5German And Swiss Bonds Did Not Protect Investors During The 2020 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Did Not Protect Investors During The 2020 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Did Not Protect Investors During The 2020 Crash The defencelessness of European investors can also be illustrated via a ‘balanced’ 25:75 portfolio containing the DAX and 10-year German bund. The balanced portfolio theory is that a large weighting to bonds should counterbalance a sharp sell-off in equities, thereby protecting the overall portfolio. The theory worked well… until now. In this year’s coronavirus crisis, the 25:75 DAX/bund portfolio suffered a loss of -13 percent. This is substantially worse than the loss of -2 percent during the euro debt crisis in 2011, and the loss of -7 percent during the global financial crisis in 2008 (Chart I-6 - Chart I-8). Chart I-6A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 7 Percent During The 2008 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 7 Percent During The 2008 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 7 Percent During The 2008 Crash Chart I-7A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 2 Percent During The 2011 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 2 Percent During The 2011 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 2 Percent During The 2011 Crash Chart I-8A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 13 Percent During The 2020 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 13 Percent During The 2020 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 13 Percent During The 2020 Crash What Are The Haven Assets? The lower limit to the policy interest rate – and therefore bond yields – is around -1 percent, because -1 percent counterbalances the storage costs of holding physical cash or other stores of value. If banks passed a deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, the depositors would flee into other stores of value. But if banks did not pass a deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, it would wipe out the banks’ net interest (profit) margin. Either way, a deeply negative policy rate would destroy the banking system. German and Swiss bond prices cannot rise much. German and Swiss bond yields are close to the -1 percent lower limit, meaning that the bond prices are close to their upper limit. Begging the question: what are the haven assets whose prices will rise and protect long-only investors when economic demand slumps? We can think of three. The Swiss franc. The Japanese yen (Chart I-9). US T-bonds. Chart I-9The Swiss Franc And Japanese Yen Are Haven Assets The Swiss Franc And Japanese Yen Are Haven Assets The Swiss Franc And Japanese Yen Are Haven Assets During the coronavirus crash, the 10-year T-bond price rallied by 4 percent while the 30-year T-bond price rallied by 10 percent (Chart I-10). Compared with German bund and Swiss bond yields, US T-bond yields were – and still are – further from the -1 percent lower limit. The good news is that long-dated T-bonds can still protect investors during a demand shock, although be warned that the extent of protection diminishes as yields get closer to the lower limit. Chart I-10Long-Dated US T-Bonds Are Haven Assets Long-Dated US T-Bonds Are Haven Assets Long-Dated US T-Bonds Are Haven Assets What about gold? As gold has a zero yield, it becomes relatively more attractive to own as the yield on other haven assets declines and turns negative. In fact, through the last three years, the gold price has been nothing more than a proxy for the US 30-year T-bond price (Chart of the Week). But gold is an inferior haven asset. During the coronavirus crash, the gold price fell by -7 percent, meaning it did not offer the protection that T-bonds offered. As such, our haven asset of choice for a further demand shock would not be gold. It would be the 30-year T-bond. What Are The Haven Equities? Many investors still use (root mean squared) volatility as a metric of investment risk. There’s a big problem with this. Volatility treats price upside the same as price downside. This is unrealistic. Nobody minds the price upside, they only care about the downside! Hence, a truer metric of risk is the potential for short-term losses versus gains. This truer measure of risk is known as negative asymmetry, or negative skew. In the twilight zone of ultra-low bond yields, bond prices take on this unattractive negative skew. As German bunds and Swiss bonds have taught us this year, bond prices can suffer losses, but they cannot offer gains. This means that bonds become riskier investments relative to other long-duration investments such as equities whose own negative skew remains relatively stable. The upshot is that the prospective return offered by equities must collapse. This is because both components of the equity return – the bond yield plus the equity risk premium – shrink simultaneously.  Equity valuations rise as an exponential function of inverted bond yields. Given that valuation is just the inverse of prospective return, the effect is that equity valuations rise as an exponential function of inverted bond yields. Chart I-11 illustrates this exponentiality by showing that technology equity multiples have tightly tracked the inverted bond yield plotted on a logarithmic scale. Chart I-11Technology Valuations Are Exponentially Sensitive To The (Inverted) Bond Yield Technology Valuations Are Exponentially Sensitive To The (Inverted) Bond Yield Technology Valuations Are Exponentially Sensitive To The (Inverted) Bond Yield Unfortunately, not all equities will benefit from this powerful dynamic. Equities must meet two crucial conditions to justify this exponential re-rating. One condition is that their sales and profits must be relatively resilient in the face of the current coronavirus induced demand shock. And they should not be at risk of a structural discontinuity, as is likely for say airlines, leisure and many other old-fashioned cyclicals. A second condition is that their cashflows must be weighted further into the future, so that their ‘net present values’ are much more geared to the decline in bond yields. Equities that meet these two conditions are likely to benefit the most from the ongoing era of ultra-low bond yields. And the two equity sectors that appear the biggest beneficiaries are technology and healthcare. In the coronavirus world, these two sectors will likely contain the haven equities. Stay structurally overweight technology and healthcare. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to go long the Polish zloty versus the euro. The profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss are set at 2 percent. Most of the other open trades are flat, though long Australian 30-year bonds versus US 30-year T-bonds and Euro area personal products versus healthcare are comfortably in profit.  The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-12PLN/EUR PLN/EUR PLN/EUR When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 From February 19 through March 18, 2020. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

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