Fixed Income

Highlights Yesterday we published a Special Report titled EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains. We are upgrading our stance on EM local currency bonds from negative to neutral. Before upgrading to a bullish stance, we would first need to upgrade our stance on EM currencies. We recommend receiving long-term swap rates in Russia, Mexico, Colombia, China and India. EM central banks’ swap lines with the Fed could be used to fend off short-term speculative attacks on EM currencies. Nevertheless, they cannot prevent EM exchange rates from depreciation when fundamental pressures warrant weaker EM currencies. For the rampant expansion of US money supply to produce a lasting greenback depreciation, US dollars should be recycled abroad. This is not yet occurring. Domestic Bonds: A New Normal Chart I-1Performance Of EM Domestic Bonds In The Last Decade Performance Of EM Domestic Bonds In The Last Decade Performance Of EM Domestic Bonds In The Last Decade In recent years, our strategy has favored the US dollar and, by extension, US Treasurys over EM domestic bonds. Chart I-1 demonstrates that the EM GBI local currency bond total return index in US dollar terms is at the same level as it was in 2011, and has massively underperformed 5-year US Treasurys. We are now upgrading our stance on EM local currency bonds from negative to neutral. Consistently, we recommend investors seek longer duration in EM domestic bonds while remaining cautious on the majority of EM currencies. Before upgrading to a bullish stance on EM local bonds, we would first need to upgrade our stance on EM currencies. Still, long-term investors who can tolerate volatility should begin accumulating EM local bonds on any further currency weakness. Our upgrade is based on the following reasons: First, there has been a fundamental shift in EM central banks’ policies. In past global downturns, many EM central banks hiked interest rates to defend their currencies. Presently, they are cutting rates aggressively despite large currency depreciation. This is the right policy action to fight the epic deflationary shock that EM economies are presently facing. There has been a fundamental shift in EM central banks’ policies. They are cutting rates aggressively despite large currency depreciation. Historically, EM local bond yields were often negatively correlated with exchange rates (Chart I-2, top panel). Similarly, when EM currencies began plunging two months ago, EM local bond yields initially spiked. However, following the brief spike, bond yields have begun dropping, even though EM currencies have not rallied (Chart I-2, bottom panel). This represents a new normal, which we discussed in detail in our October 24 report. Overall, even if EM currencies continue to depreciate, EM domestic bond yields will drop as they price in lower EM policy rates. Second, the monetary policy transmission mechanism in many EMs was broken before the COVID-19 outbreak. Even though central banks in many developing countries were reducing their policy rates before the pandemic, commercial banks’ corresponding lending rates were not dropping much (Chart I-3, top panel). Chart II-2EM Local Bond Yields And EM Currencies EM Local Bond Yields And EM Currencies EM Local Bond Yields And EM Currencies Chart I-3EM ex-China: Monetary Transmission Has Been Impaired EM ex-China: Monetary Transmission Has Been Impaired EM ex-China: Monetary Transmission Has Been Impaired   Further, core inflation rates were at all time lows and prime lending rates in real terms were extremely high (Chart I-3, middle panels). Consequently, bank loan growth was slowing preceding the pandemic (Chart I-3, bottom panel). The reason was banks’ poor financial health. Saddled with a lot of NPLs, banks had been seeking wide interest rate margins to generate profit and recapitalize themselves. With the outburst of the pandemic and the sudden stop in domestic and global economic activity, EM banks’ willingness to lend has all but evaporated. Chart I-4 reveals EM ex-China bank stocks have plunged, despite considerable monetary policy easing in EM, which historically was bullish for bank share prices. This upholds the fact that the monetary policy transmission mechanism in EM is broken. Mounting bad loans due to the pandemic will only reinforce these dynamics. Swap lines with the Fed cannot prevent EM exchange rates from depreciation when fundamental pressures – global and domestic recessions – warrant weaker EM currencies. In brief, EM lower policy rates will not be transmitted to lower borrowing costs for companies and households anytime soon. Loan growth and domestic demand will remain in an air pocket for some time.    Consequently, EM policy rates will have to drop much lower to have a meaningful impact on growth. Third, there is value in EM local yields. The yield differential between EM GBI local currency bonds and 5-year US Treasurys shot up back to 500 basis points, the upper end of its historical range (Chart I-5). Chart I-4EM ex-China: Bank Stocks Plunged Despite Rate Cuts EM ex-China: Bank Stocks Plunged Despite Rate Cuts EM ex-China: Bank Stocks Plunged Despite Rate Cuts Chart I-5The EM Vs. US Yield Differential Is Attractive The EM Vs. US Yield Differential Is Attractive The EM Vs. US Yield Differential Is Attractive   Bottom Line: Odds favor further declines in EM local currency bond yields. Fixed-income investors should augment their duration exposure. We express this view by recommending receiving swap rates in the following markets: Russia, Mexico, Colombia, India and China. This is in addition to our existing receiver positions in Korean and Malaysian swap rates. For more detail, please refer to the Investment Recommendations section on page 8. Nevertheless, absolute-return investors should be cognizant of further EM currency depreciation. EM Currencies: At Mercy Of Global Growth Chart I-6EM Currencies Correlate With Commodities Prices EM Currencies Correlate With Commodities Prices EM Currencies Correlate With Commodities Prices The key driver of EM currencies has been and remains global growth. The latter will remain very depressed for some time, warranting patience before turning bullish on EM exchange rates. We have long argued that EM exchange rates are driven not by US interest rates but by global growth. Industrial metals prices offer a reasonable pulse on global growth. Chart I-6 illustrates their tight correlation with EM currencies. Even though the S&P 500 has rebounded sharply in recent weeks, there are no signs of a meaningful improvement in industrial metals prices. Various raw materials prices in China are also sliding (Chart I-7). In a separate section below we lay out the case as to why there is more downside in iron ore and steel as well as coal prices in China. Finally, the ADXY – the emerging Asia currency index against the US dollar – has broken down below its 2008, 2016 and 2018-19 lows (Chart I-8). This is a very bearish technical profile, suggesting more downside ahead. This fits with our fundamental assessment that a recovery in global economic activity is not yet imminent. Chart I-7China: Commodities Prices Are Sliding China: Commodities Prices Are Sliding China: Commodities Prices Are Sliding Chart I-8A Breakdown In Emerging Asian Currencies A Breakdown In Emerging Asian Currencies A Breakdown In Emerging Asian Currencies   What About The Fed’s Swap Lines? A pertinent question is whether EM central banks’ foreign currency reserves and the Federal Reserve’s swap lines with several of its EM counterparts are sufficient to prop up EM currencies prior to a pickup in global growth. The short answer is as follows: These swap lines will likely limit the downside but cannot preclude further depreciation. With the exception of Turkey and South Africa, virtually all mainstream EM banks have large foreign currency reserves. On top of this, several of them – Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore– have recently obtained access to Fed swap lines. Their own foreign exchange reserves and the swap lines with the Fed give them an option to defend their currencies from depreciation if they choose to do so. However, selling US dollars by EM central banks is not without cost. When central banks sell their FX reserves or dollars obtained from the Fed via swap lines, they withdraw local currency liquidity from the system. As a result, banking system liquidity shrinks, pushing up interbank rates. This is equivalent to hiking interest rates. The Fed’s outright money printing is the sole reason to buy EM risk assets and currencies at the moment. Yet, EM fundamentals – namely, its growth outlook – remain downbeat. Hence, the cost of defending the exchange rate by using FX reserves is both liquidity and credit tightening. In such a case, the currency could stabilize but the economy will take a beating. Since the currency depreciation was itself due to economic weakness, such a policy will in and of itself be self-defeating. The basis is that escalating domestic economic weakness will re-assert its dampening effect on the currency. Of course, EM central banks can offset such tightening by injecting new liquidity. However, this could also backfire and lead to renewed currency depreciation. Bottom Line: EM central banks’ swap lines with the Fed are primarily intended to instill confidence among investors in financial markets. They could be used to fend off short-term speculative attacks on EM currencies. Nevertheless, they cannot prevent EM exchange rates from depreciation when fundamental pressures – global and domestic recessions – warrant weaker EM currencies. What About The Fed’s Money Printing? Chart I-9The Fed Is Aggressively Printing Money The Fed Is Aggressively Printing Money The Fed Is Aggressively Printing Money The Fed is printing money and monetising not only public debt but also substantial amounts of private debt. This will ultimately be very bearish for the US dollar. Chart I-9 illustrates that the Fed is printing money much more aggressively than during its quantitative easing (QE) policies post 2008. The key difference between the Fed’s liquidity provisions now and during its previous QEs is as follows: When the Fed purchases securities from or lends to commercial banks, it creates new reserves (banking system liquidity) but it does not create money supply. Banks’ reserves at the Fed are not a part of broad money supply. This was generally the case during previous QEs when the Fed was buying bonds mostly – but not exclusively – from banks, therefore increasing reserves without raising money supply by much. When the Fed lends to or purchases securities from non-banks, it creates both excess reserves for the banking system and money supply (deposits at banks) out of thin air. The fact that US money supply (M2) growth is now much stronger than during the 2010s QEs suggests the recent surge in US money supply is due to the Fed’s asset purchases from and lending to non-banks, which creates money/deposits outright.  The rampant expansion of US money supply will eventually lead to the greenback’s depreciation. However, for the US dollar to depreciate against EM currencies, the following two conditions should be satisfied: 1. US imports should expand, reviving global growth, i.e., the US should send dollars to the rest of the world by buying goods and services. This is not yet happening as domestic demand in America has plunged and any demand recovery in the next three to six months will be tame and muted. 2. US investors should channel US dollars to EM to purchase EM financial assets. In recent weeks, foreign flows have been returning to EM due to the considerable improvement in EM asset valuations. However, the sustainability of these capital flows into EM remains questionable. The main reasons are two-fold: (A) there is huge uncertainty on how efficiently EM countries will be able handle the economic and health repercussions of the pandemic; and (B) global growth remains weak and, as we discussed above, it has historically been the main driver of EM risk assets and currencies.  Bottom Line: The Fed’s outright money printing is the sole reason to buy EM risk assets and currencies at the moment. Yet, EM fundamentals – namely, its growth outlook – remain downbeat. Overall, we recommend investors to stay put on EM risk assets and currencies in the near-term. Investment Recommendations Chart I-10China: Bet On Lower Long-Term Yields China: Bet On Lower Long-Term Yields China: Bet On Lower Long-Term Yields We have been recommending receiving rates in a few markets such as Korea and Malaysia. Now, we are widening this universe to include Russia, Mexico, Colombia, China, and India. In China, the long end of the yield curve offers value (Chart I-10, top panel). The People’s Bank of China has brought down short rates dramatically but the long end has so far lagged (Chart I-10, bottom panel). We recommend investors receive 10-year swap rates. Fixed-income investors could also bet on yield curve flattening. The recovery in China will be tame and the PBoC will keep interest rates lower for longer. Consequently, long-dated swap rates will gravitate toward short rates.  We are closing three fixed-income trades: In Mexico, we are booking profits on our trade of receiving 2-year / paying 10-year swap rates – a bet on a steeper yield curve. This position has generated a 152 basis-point gain since its initiation on April 12, 2018. In Colombia, our bet on yield curve flattening has produced a loss of 28 basis points since January 17, 2019. We are closing it. In Chile, we are closing our long 3-year bonds / short 3-year inflation-linked bonds position. This trade has returned 2.0% since we recommended it on October 3, 2019. For dedicated EM domestic bond portfolios, our overweights are Russia, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, India, China, Pakistan and Ukraine. Our underweights are South Africa, Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia and the Philippines. The remaining markets warrant a neutral allocation. Regarding EM currencies, we continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Chinese Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Markets: Heading South Chart II-1Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Prices: More Downside Ahead? Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Prices: More Downside Ahead? Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Prices: More Downside Ahead? Odds are that iron ore, steel and coal prices will all continue heading south (Chart II-1). Lower prices will harm both Chinese and global producers of these commodities. Steel And Iron Ore The oversupplied conditions in the Chinese steel market will become even more aggravated over the next three to six months. First, Chinese output of steel products has not contracted even though demand plunged in the first three months of the year, creating oversupply. Despite falling steel prices and the demand breakdown resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, Chinese crude steel output still grew at 1.5% and its steel products output only declined 0.6% between January and March from a year ago (Chart II-2). Chart II-2Steel Products Output In China: Still No Contraction Steel Products Output In China: Still No Contraction Steel Products Output In China: Still No Contraction The profit margin of Chinese steel producers has compressed but not enough to herald a sizable cut in mainland steel production. Despite oversupply, Chinese steel producers are reluctant to curtail output to prevent layoffs. This year, there will be 62 million tons of new steel production capacity while 82 million tons of obsolete capacity will be shut down. As the capacity-utilization rate (CUR) of the new advanced production capacity will be much higher than the CUR on those soon-to-be-removed capacities in previous years, this will help lift steel output.   Second, Chinese steel demand has plummeted, and any revival will be mild and gradual over the next three to six months. Construction accounts for about 55% of Chinese steel demand, with about 35% coming from the property market and 20% from infrastructure. Additionally, the automobile industry contributes about 10% of demand. All three sectors are currently in deep contraction (Chart II-3). Looking ahead, we expect that the demand for steel from property construction and automobile production will revive only gradually. Overall, it will continue contracting on a year-on-year basis, albeit at a diminishing rate than now. While we projected a 6-8% rise in Chinese infrastructure investment for this year, most of that will be back-loaded to the second half of the year. In addition, modest and gradual steel demand increases from this source will not be able to offset the loss of demand from the property and automobile sectors. The oversupplied conditions in the Chinese steel market will become even more aggravated over the next three to six months. Reflecting the disparity between weak demand and resilient supply, steel inventories in the hands of producers and traders are surging, which also warrants much lower prices (Chart II-4).   Chart II-3Deep Contraction In Steel Demand From Major Users Deep Contraction In Steel Demand From Major Users Deep Contraction In Steel Demand From Major Users Chart II-4Significant Build-Up In Steel Inventories Significant Build-Up In Steel Inventories Significant Build-Up In Steel Inventories   Chart II-5Chinese Iron Ore Imports Will Likely Decline In 2020 Chinese Iron Ore Imports Will Likely Decline In 2020 Chinese Iron Ore Imports Will Likely Decline In 2020 Regarding iron ore, mushrooming steel inventories in China and lower steel prices will eventually lead to steel output cutbacks in the country. This will be compounded by shrinking steel production outside of China, dampening global demand for iron ore. Besides, in China, scrap steel prices have fallen more sharply than iron ore prices have. This makes the use of scrap steel more appealing than iron ore in steel production. Chinese iron ore imports will likely drop this year (Chart II-5). Finally, the global output of iron ore is likely to increase in 2020. The top three producers (Vale, Rio Tinto and BHP) have all set their 2020 guidelines above their 2019 production levels. This will further weigh on iron ore prices. Coal Although Chinese coal prices will also face downward pressure, we believe that the downside will be much less than that for steel and iron ore prices. Coal prices have already declined nearly 27% from their 2019 peak. They recently declined below 500 RMB per ton – the lower end of a range that the government generally tries to maintain. Prices had not dropped below this level since September 2016. In the near term, prices could go down by another 5-10%, given that record-high domestic coal production and imports have overwhelmed the market (Chart II-6). Coal prices have already declined nearly 27% from their 2019 peak. They recently declined below 500 RMB per ton – the lower end of a range that the government generally tries to maintain. However, there are emerging supportive forces. China Coal Transport & Distribution Association (CCTD), the nation’s leading industry group, on April 18, called on the industry to slash production (of both thermal and coking coal) in May by 10%. It also proposed that the government should restrict imports. The CCTD stated that about 42% of the producers are losing money at current coal prices. The government had demanded producers make similar cuts for a much longer time duration in 2016, which pushed coal to sky-high prices.  The outlook for a revival in the consumption of electricity and, thereby, in the demand for coal is more certain than it is for steel and iron ore. About 60% of Chinese coal is used to generate thermal power. Finally, odds are rising that the government will temporarily impose restrictions on coal imports as it did last December – when coal imports to China fell by 70% as a result. Investment Implications Companies and countries producing these commodities will be hurt by the reduction of Chinese purchases. These include, but are not limited to, producers in Indonesia, Australia, Brazil and South Africa. Iron ore and coal make up 10% of total exports in Brazil, 6% in South Africa, 18% in Indonesia and 32% in Australia. Investors should avoid global steel and mining stocks (Chart II-7). Chart II-6Chinese Coal Output And Imports Are At Record Highs Chinese Coal Output And Imports Are At Record Highs Chinese Coal Output And Imports Are At Record Highs Chart II-7Avoid Global Steel And Mining Stocks For Now Avoid Global Steel And Mining Stocks For Now Avoid Global Steel And Mining Stocks For Now   We continue to recommend shorting BRL, ZAR and IDR versus the US dollar. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

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

Highlights Social distancing makes it impossible to do jobs that require close personal interaction, yet these are the very job sectors that have kept jobs growth alive in recent decades. If social distancing persists, then AI will penetrate these job sectors too. Aggregate wage inflation is set to collapse – not just temporarily, but structurally. Structurally overweight US T-bonds versus the core European bonds in Germany, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden. Structurally overweight big technology, structurally underweight banks. Structurally overweight S&P 500 versus Euro Stoxx 50. Fractal trade: long Australian 30-year bond versus US 30-year T-bond. Feature Social distancing will feature large in our lives for the foreseeable future, and it carries a profound consequence. Social distancing really means physical distancing. And physical distancing diminishes the ways that we can interact with other humans – through the qualities of empathy, sympathy, the ability to recognise and respond to emotional cues, and to express ourselves through complex movements. You cannot hug someone on Facetime. Social distancing makes it impossible to do jobs that require close personal interaction. From an economic perspective, social distancing makes it impossible to do jobs that require close personal interaction. It follows that in the recent bloodbath of job losses, the biggest casualties have been in employment sectors that rely on this close personal interaction: food services and drinking places (waitresses, bartenders, and baristas), ambulatory healthcare services, hotels, and social assistance (Table I-1). Table I-1Social Distancing Is Destroying Jobs That Require Close Personal Interaction Social Distancing Is Good For Robots, Bad For Humans Social Distancing Is Good For Robots, Bad For Humans A profound consequence arises because these are the very sectors that have kept jobs growth alive in recent decades (Table I-2). Millions of new jobs that rely on close personal interaction have more than offset the structural job destruction in manufacturing and finance. As well as being export-proof, jobs that require this close personal interaction have been ‘artificial intelligence (AI) proof’. That is, until now. Table I-2Jobs That Require Close Personal Interaction Have Been The Engine Of Jobs Growth Social Distancing Is Good For Robots, Bad For Humans Social Distancing Is Good For Robots, Bad For Humans One UK doctor told the New York Times “we’re basically witnessing 10 years of change in one week”. Before the virus, online consultations made up only 1 percent of doctors’ appointments. But now, three in four UK patients are seeing their doctor remotely. Moravec’s Paradox + Social Distancing = A Very Tough Jobs Market Regular readers will know that one of our mega-themes is the far-reaching societal and economic implications of Moravec’s Paradox. Named after the professor of robotics, Hans Moravec, the paradox points out that: For AI the hard things are easy, but the easy things are hard. By the hard things, we mean things that require ‘narrow-frame pattern recognition’ within a defined body of knowledge. For example, playing chess, translating languages, diagnosing medical conditions, and analysing legal problems. We find these tasks hard, but AI finds them effortless. By the easy things, we mean our social skills: empathy, sympathy, the ability to recognise and respond to emotional cues, and to express ourselves through complex movements. To us, all these things are second nature, but AI finds them very hard to replicate. The reason, it turns out, is that the higher brain that enables us to learn and play chess and solve similar abstract problems evolved relatively recently. Whereas the ancient lower brain that enables complex movement and the associated giving and receiving of emotional signals took much longer to evolve. As AI is just reverse engineering the human brain, AI has found it easy to replicate the less-evolved higher brain functions, but very difficult to replicate the skills that emanate from the deeply evolved lower brain. Millions of new jobs that rely on close personal interaction have more than offset the structural job destruction in manufacturing and finance. The far-reaching societal and economic implication is that we have misunderstood and mispriced what is difficult and what is easy. By reverse engineering the brain, AI is correcting this mispricing. So far, AI has been most disruptive to high-paying jobs requiring abstract problem-solving skills, such as in finance. AI has been less disruptive to jobs requiring close personal interaction (Table I-3). But if social distancing persists, then AI will disrupt those jobs too, especially during a recession. Table I-3New Jobs That Require Close Personal Interaction Have Offset Lost Jobs In Manufacturing And Finance Social Distancing Is Good For Robots, Bad For Humans Social Distancing Is Good For Robots, Bad For Humans Labour Market Disruption Intensifies During A Recession To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, industries adopt labour-saving technologies gradually then suddenly. And the suddenly tends to be during a recession. This is because once an industry has already shed many workers, it is easier to restructure the industry with a new labour-saving technology that reduces labour input permanently. At the start of the Great Depression a substantial part of the US automobile industry was still based on skilled craftsmanship. These smaller, less productive craft-production plants were the ones that shut down permanently, while plants that had adopted labour-saving mass production had the competitive advantage that enabled them to survive. The result was a major restructuring of the auto productive structure. Likewise, until the late 1990s, the ‘typing pool’ was a ubiquitous feature of the office environment. But once the 2000 downturn arrived, these typing jobs became extinct to be replaced by the wholesale roll-out of Microsoft Word. After the 2008-09 recession, UK economic power became focussed in a few large firms that could access the finance to ensure their survival. As small firms went by the wayside, job growth came disproportionately from self-employment and the ‘gig economy’. In this case, the labour market disruption hurt productivity as an army of freelancers ended up doing their own sales, marketing and accounts in which they had no specialism (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1The 1990s UK Recovery Produced No Increase In Self-Employment... The 1990s UK Recovery Produced No Increase In Self-Employment... The 1990s UK Recovery Produced No Increase In Self-Employment... Chart I-2...But The 2010s UK Recovery Produced A Huge Increase In Self-Employment ...But The 2010s UK Recovery Produced A Huge Increase In Self-Employment ...But The 2010s UK Recovery Produced A Huge Increase In Self-Employment The point is that all recessions produce major structural changes in the labour market and the current recession will be no different. If social distancing persists, it will nullify the social skill advantage that humans have over AI. Therefore, one structural change will be that AI disrupts the more ‘human’ job sectors that have so far escaped its penetration. All recessions produce major structural changes in the labour market. To repeat, labour market disruption arrives suddenly. Within the space of a few weeks, most UK patients have switched to receiving their medical care online or by telephone. Admittedly, the patients are still ‘seeing’ a human doctor, but the question and answer consultations are a classic example of narrow-frame pattern recognition. Meaning that it would be a small step to upgrade the human doctor to the superior diagnosis from AI. And if AI can produce a superior diagnosis to your human doctor, why can’t AI also produce a a superior legal analysis to your human lawyer? The Investment Implications Even when the labour market seemed to be humming and unemployment rates were at multi-decade lows, aggregate wage inflation was anaemic (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). A major reason was the hollowing out of high paying jobs and substitution with low paying jobs. Now that unemployment rates are surging, and AI is penetrating even more job sectors, aggregate wage inflation is set to collapse – not just temporarily, but structurally. Chart I-3Unemployment Rates Have Been At Multi-Decade Lows... Unemployment Rates Have Been At Multi-Decade Lows... Unemployment Rates Have Been At Multi-Decade Lows... Chart I-4...But Wage Inflation Has Been ##br##Anaemic ...But Wage Inflation Has Been Anaemic ...But Wage Inflation Has Been Anaemic This leads to the following investment implications: 1. All bond yields will gravitate to their lower bound, so any bond yield that can go lower will go lower. 2. It follows that bond investors should continue to overweight US T-bonds versus the core European bonds in Germany, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Any Bond Yield That Can Go Lower Will Go Lower Any Bond Yield That Can Go Lower Will Go Lower Any Bond Yield That Can Go Lower Will Go Lower 3. Underweight banks structurally. Depressed and flattening yield curves combined with shrinking demand for private credit constitutes a strong headwind. Banks are now underperforming in both up markets and in down markets (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Banks Are Underperforming In Both Up Markets And Down Markets Banks Are Underperforming In Both Up Markets And Down Markets Banks Are Underperforming In Both Up Markets And Down Markets 4. Overweight technology structurally. As AI penetrates even more job sectors, the superstar companies of big tech will continue to thrive. The duopoly of Apple and Google are designing proximity-tracking apps for every smartphone in the world. Big tech is laying down the law to governments, and there is not even a hint of antitrust suits. Tech is now outperforming in both up markets and in down markets (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Tech Is Outperforming In Both Up Markets And Down Markets Tech Is Outperforming In Both Up Markets And Down Markets Tech Is Outperforming In Both Up Markets And Down Markets 5. Finally, if big tech outperforms banks, the sector composition of the S&P 500 versus the Euro Stoxx 50 makes it inevitable that the US equity market will structurally outperform the euro area equity market (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If Big Tech Outperforms Banks, The S&P 500 Must Outperform The Euro Stoxx 50 If Big Tech Outperforms Banks, The S&P 500 Must Outperform The Euro Stoxx 50 If Big Tech Outperforms Banks, The S&P 500 Must Outperform The Euro Stoxx 50 Fractal Trading System* The steep decline in the US 30-year T-bond yield means that it has crossed below the Australian 30-year bond yield for the first time in recent history. Resulting from this dynamic, this week’s recommended trade is long the Australian 30-year bond versus the US 30-year T-bond. Set the profit target at 9 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. Chart I-930-Year Govt. Bonds: Australia Vs. US 30-Year Govt. Bonds: Australia Vs. US 30-Year Govt. Bonds: Australia Vs. US In other trades, long IBEX versus Euro Stoxx 600 hit its 3 percent stop-loss, while long nickel versus copper is half way to its 11 percent profit target. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 63 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields 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 In mainstream EM, foreign currency debt restructuring is more likely to occur among corporates than governments. Thus, dedicated EM credit investors should overweight mainstream EM sovereign credit and underweight EM corporate debt. Urgency among EM companies and banks to hedge their large foreign currency liabilities will continue exerting downward pressure on EM exchange rates. Ongoing currency depreciation and the lack of buyers of last resort for EM credit underpin the following strategy: short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long US investment-grade corporate credit. Feature Scope And Focus Of Analysis This report re-visits the issue of EM foreign currency debt, assessing EM debt vulnerability. This report focuses on mainstream EM (countries included in Table 1), excluding Gulf countries and frontier markets. Frontier markets like Argentina, Ecuador, Egypt, Ukraine, Lebanon and sub-Saharan African countries occupy somewhat idiosyncratic positions and are therefore not part of this report. Gulf countries on the other hand, are extremely leveraged to oil prices and, unlike mainstream EMs they have currency pegs warranting a separate analysis.1 Chart 1Favor EM Sovereign Against EM Corporate Credit Favor EM Sovereign Against EM Corporate Credit Favor EM Sovereign Against EM Corporate Credit Among mainstream EM countries, public debt restructuring is not imminent and in the majority of cases is unlikely. However, there is a growing risk of foreign currency debt restructuring among EM companies and banks. Hence, we make a new investment recommendation: overweight mainstream EM sovereign credit / underweight EM corporate debt (Chart 1). We also reiterate the short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long US investment-grade corporate credit strategy. In this report, foreign currency debt is defined as the sum of foreign debt securities (i.e., foreign currency bonds) and foreign currency loans. In short, foreign currency debt measures foreign currency borrowing of companies, banks and governments. These statistics do not include foreign holdings of local currency bonds and equities or any other local currency liability of residents to foreigners. Overall, the level of foreign currency debt is pertinent in assessing EM debt vulnerability originating from exchange rate depreciation. Table 12 offers comprehensive foreign currency debt statistics for each individual country and EM as a whole. It details foreign currency debt by type of borrower - the government, corporates and banks – and also reveals the breakdown between foreign debt securities and foreign currency loans for each segment. Table 1EM FX Debt: Who Owes How Much EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains Chart 2EM FX Debt Has Doubled Since 2008 EM FX Debt Has Doubled Since 2008 EM FX Debt Has Doubled Since 2008 The foreign currency debt of Chinese companies and banks is quite substantial relative to other EM countries. Hence, including China in the EM aggregates would materially affect these EM aggregates. We thus focus our analysis on EM ex-China and present China’s numbers separately. Since early 2009, EM ex-China aggregate foreign currency debt has doubled to about $3 trillion (Chart 2). Furthermore, this $3 trillion EM ex-China foreign currency debt is split as follows in terms of borrower type: non-financial corporates ($1.25 billion), banks ($846 billion) and governments ($878 billion). Government Foreign Currency Debt Among mainstream EM countries, foreign currency government debt is not vulnerable to restructuring or default. The reason is that the foreign currency debt burden of governments is low, having declined dramatically in the last decade. Table 2 illustrates that the share of local currency government debt is by far greater than the foreign currency debt in each EM country. Table 2EM Public Debt: Local Currency Exceeds FX Debt EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains In the past 10 years, EM governments have deliberately replaced their foreign currency debt with local currency debt. Search for yield by international fixed-income investors has facilitated this debt swap: enormous foreign demand for EM domestic bonds has allowed EM governments to issue a considerable amount of local currency bonds. Chart 3EM Foreign Exchange Reserves Are Large EM Foreign Exchange Reserves Are Large EM Foreign Exchange Reserves Are Large In addition, mainstream EM countries, with exception of Turkey and South Africa, hold large foreign currency reserves (Chart 3). Lately, several mainstream EM countries have gained a new defense tool from the Federal Reserves – US dollar swap lines. EM central banks’ swap lines with the Fed are primarily intended to instill confidence among investors in financial markets. They could be used to fend off short-term speculative attacks on EM currencies. Nevertheless, they cannot alleviate insolvency problems. We will elaborate more about these swap lines with the Fed in another report this week. As to local currency public debt, the odds of debt restructuring are also low. First, the majority of EM countries have low aggregate public debt burdens as a share of the GDP (Table 2). Second, the majority of these nations have flexible currency regimes. This means that their central banks control the printing press. In the worst-case scenario - when investors become reluctant to own EM local currency government bonds, EM central banks can buy those bonds in both the secondary or primary markets if needed. In short, EM central banks can resort to a form of quantitative easing, i.e., purchasing local currency government bonds that would amount to public debt monetization. The wild card in this case will be the exchange rate – the currencies could depreciate substantially amid public debt monetization by central banks. Given that government liabilities in foreign currencies have declined substantially, exchange rate depreciation will not be a constraint for policymakers’ ability to monetize local currency debt. Remarkably, in the past two months amid the global indiscriminate selloff, central banks in several EM countries have begun purchasing government bonds or have stated that they will do so if required. This has created a precedent that will be used in future. One country that has large local currency government debt is Brazil. We have previously argued that Brazil requires robust nominal GDP growth to climb out of a public debt trap. With the COVID-19 crisis, the outbreak for its public debt has worsened considerably. Without the central bank monetizing public debt, it will be difficult for Brazil to escape rising government debt strains and, ultimately, local currency debt restructuring. In short, the cost of avoiding local currency public debt restructuring in Brazil could be large currency depreciation. Bottom Line: In mainstream EM, neither foreign currency nor local currency government debt face an imminent risk of restructuring. Public debt restructuring and defaults are occurring in Argentina and among frontier markets like Ecuador, Lebanon and a few sub-Saharan nations that are beyond the scope of this report. If local currency government bond markets become anxious about public debt sustainability, EM central banks could purchase government paper. If done on large scale, this will cause further currency depreciation. Corporate Foreign Currency Debt From a macro perspective, there are presently some pre-conditions that herald rising odds of foreign currency debt restructuring among EM corporates and banks: (1) rapid and massive foreign currency debt built up in the past 10-15 years; (2) substantial plunge in corporate revenues; and (3) massive currency depreciation. Taken together, these create fertile ground for debt restructuring by some corporate debtors. Foreign currency debt of companies and banks in mainstream EM ex-China countries has swelled in the past 10 years reaching $2.1. Bonds account for about $1.4 trillion while foreign currency loans account for the remaining $0.7 trillion. The global recession brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic is producing a collapse in EM companies’ local currency revenues and exports. Notably, EM ex-China exports were contracting even before the COVID-19 outbreak and they are currently crashing (Chart 4). Chart 4EM Exports & Corporate Credit Spreads EM Exports & Corporate Credit Spreads EM Exports & Corporate Credit Spreads Chart 5Commodities Prices And Currencies Drive EM Credit Spreads Commodities Prices And Currencies Drive EM Credit Spreads Commodities Prices And Currencies Drive EM Credit Spreads The top panel of Chart 5 illustrates EM corporate credit spreads (inverted) correlate with commodities prices. Hence, plunging commodities prices entail growing foreign currency debt stress for EM companies and banks. Finally, EM ex-China currencies have depreciated substantially making foreign currency debt more expensive to service (Chart 5, bottom panel). Please refer to Box 1 attesting that for EM debtors with US dollar liabilities, EM exchange rate depreciation is worse than that of higher US bond yields.     Box 1 What Is More Imperative For EM FX Debt: Exchange Rates Or Interest Rates? EM debtors with dollar debt are much more vulnerable to an appreciating dollar than rising US interest rates. Table 3 illustrates this point using the following hypothetical simulation: We consider a conjectural Brazilian debtor with $1,000 in debt with five years remaining to maturity, and a starting point exchange rate of 4 BRL per USD. In our example, a 5% depreciation in local currency against the dollar boosts the overall debt burden by 200 BRL (please refer to row 2 of Table 3). This does not include the rise in local currency costs of interest payments. It reflects only the increased burden of principal. Table 3A Hypothetical Simulation: FX Debt Burden Is More Sensitive To Exchange Rate Than Borrowing Costs EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains An equivalent rise in debt servicing costs in local currency will require a 100-basis-point increase in US dollar borrowing costs. In brief, US dollar rates should rise by 100 basis points for interest payments to increase by BRL 200 over a five-year period, the time remaining to maturity. This simulation reveals that a 5% dollar appreciation versus local currency is as painful as a 100 basis points rise in US dollar rates and is more burdensome if the cost of coupon payments is accounted for. Provided there are higher odds of 5% currency depreciation in many EMs than a 100-basis-point rise in US dollar borrowing costs, we infer that EM FX debtors’ creditworthiness is more sensitive to exchange rates than to US Treasury yields. As the bottom panel of Chart 5 above clearly demonstrates, EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads correlate strongly with EM exchange rates. Consequently, the trend in EM exchange rates versus the US dollar is much more important for EM credit spreads than fluctuations in US bond yields. As to the currency composition of EM FX debt, about 82% of EM external debt is in US-dollar terms. Bottom Line: So long as EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM FX debt stress will mount, and EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads will widen. This will occur irrespective of whether US Treasury yields rise or drop.   If the bear market in commodities persists and/or EM currencies depreciate further – which is our baseline scenario, defaults on and restructuring of foreign currency debt among EM companies and banks are probable. One avenue to avoid corporate defaults is for the government to guarantee or assume the banks’ and companies’ foreign currency liabilities. It is probable because many of these borrowers are large entities with close links to their governments. However, governments will step in only after a debtor is on the brink default and its credit spreads are very wide. Briefly put, investors should be careful not to bet too early on government backstops of EM corporates’ and banks’ foreign currency debt. Identifying which corporate issuers could default or restructure debt involves bottom-up analysis that is beyond the scope of the macro research that BCA specializes in. An important question is what portion of corporate foreign currency liabilities have these debtors already hedged? Unfortunately, there are no macro data to answer this question either. Judging by the magnitude and speed of EM currency depreciation we have seen in the past two months, odds are that they have already partially hedged their exchange rate risk. Yet, given the sheer size of foreign currency liabilities, it is hard to imagine that corporates and banks have hedged all of them. Below we analyze each countries’ ability to service its foreign currency debt from a macro perspective. Vulnerability Assessment From a macro standpoint, foreign debt servicing vulnerability can be measured by foreign debt obligations (FDOs) and foreign funding requirements (FFRs). Chart 6EM FDOs And FFRs (Annualized) EM FDOs And FFRs (Annualized) EM FDOs And FFRs (Annualized) FDOs are the sum of debt expiring in the next 12 months, and interest as well as amortization payments over the next 12 months. FDO data are available until Q3 of 2019 (Chart 6, top panel). Hence, using this latest datapoint is pertinent to gauging the ability of individual countries to service their foreign debt over the coming six months. FFRs are the sum of FDOs in the next 12 months and current account balance (Chart 6, bottom panel). It measures the amount of foreign capital inflows required in the next 12 months for a country to cover any shortfalls in its balance of payment dynamics. Exports Coverage Of FDO: This measure compares annualized US dollar export revenues available to each country to its foreign debt service obligations in the next 12 months (Chart 7). The most vulnerable countries according to this measure are Brazil, Colombia, Turkey and Peru. On the other hand, Russia, Mexico, India & Korea have higher exports-to-FDO ratios. Chart 7Exports-To-Foreign Debt Obligations Ratio EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains Foreign Exchange Reserves-to-FFRs Ratio: These metrics compare the size of foreign exchange reserves held by each nation’s central bank to its FFRs in the next 12 months (Chart 8). By this measure, Chile, Colombia, Turkey, Indonesia and Mexico have large FFRs relative to their central bank foreign exchange reserves. Meanwhile, Russia, Korea and Thailand fare well on this metric. Chart 8FX Reserves-To-Foreign Funding Requirements EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains On the whole, Chart 9 is a scatter plot combining both FDO and FFR measures to determine the most and least vulnerable EMs. The most vulnerable EMs are Brazil, Turkey, Colombia and Chile. Meanwhile, Russia, Korea, India and the Philippines are the least vulnerable. Chart 9EM FX Debt And Currency Vulnerability EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains Investment Recommendations So long as EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM foreign currency debt stress will mount, and EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads will widen. We remain bearish on EM currencies. They usually trade with the global business cycle and the latter remains in free fall. We continue recommending shorting a basket of the following currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW. There will likely be no imminent restructuring or default on public debt in mainstream EM countries, outside frontier markets like Argentina, Ecuador, Lebanon and sub-Saharan African countries. However, there could be meaningful credit stress among EM corporate issuers. Consequently, dedicated EM credit investors should overweight mainstream EM sovereign credit and underweight EM corporate debt. We continue to recommend underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus US investment-grade corporate credit (Chart 10). Not only is the Fed buying US investment-grade and some high-yield bonds but US companies will also benefit from the substantial fiscal stimulus. In EM, corporates and banks lack such support. Crucially, in contrast to US corporates, EM issuers also suffer from currency depreciation. Within the EM sovereign credit universe, our overweights are Russia, Mexico, Peru, Thailand and Malaysia. Underweights include South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines and Turkey. The rest warrant a neutral allocation within an EM sovereign credit portfolio. Finally, within corporate credit, we reiterate our long-standing recommendation of long Asian investment-grade corporates / Asian short high-yield corporate (Chart 11). We continue recommending shorting a basket of the following currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW. Chart 10Remain Underweight EM Credit Versus US IG Credit Remain Underweight EM Credit Versus US IG Credit Remain Underweight EM Credit Versus US IG Credit Chart 11Long Asian IG Corporate / Short Asian HY Corporate Long Asian IG Corporate / Short Asian HY Corporate Long Asian IG Corporate / Short Asian HY Corporate     Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1We will publish a report on Saudi Arabia in the coming weeks. 2We have compiled data on foreign currency securities issued by non-financial companies and banks from Bloomberg. Bloomberg data accounts for the nationality of debt issuers. For instance, a US dollar bond issued by a Brazilian corporate subsidiary or a shell company located in the Cayman Islands is counted as Brazilian foreign corporate debt, rather than a Cayman Island debt security. For foreign loans, we use the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) datasets on Banking Statistics.

Highlights Q1/2020 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark by -40bps during the first quarter of the year – a number that would have been far worse if not for the changes in exposures for duration (increased) and spread product (decreased) made in early March. Winners & Losers: Underperformance was concentrated in sovereign debt, US Treasuries in particular (-94bps), as yields plummeted. This detracted from the outperformance in spread product (+51bps) led by US investment grade corporates (+34bps) and emerging markets (+20bps). Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: Given the ongoing uncertainty over when the COVID-19 pandemic and economy-crushing global lockdown will end, we are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure. Instead, we recommend focusing more on country allocation and spread product relative value to generate outperformance, favoring markets where there is direct involvement from central banks. Feature Global bond markets were roiled in the first quarter of 2020 by the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Government bond yields crashed to all-time lows while volatility reached extremes across both sovereign debt and credit. The quick, coordinated policy response from global monetary and fiscal authorities – which includes unprecedented levels of direct central bank asset purchases, both in terms of size and the breadth across markets and counties - has helped stabilize global credit spreads and risk assets, more generally. The outlook remains highly uncertain, however, with many governments worldwide looking to reopen their collapsed economies, risking the potential resurgence of a virus still lacking effective treatment or a vaccine. We are focusing more on relative value between counties and sectors. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the eventful first quarter of 2020. We also present our updated recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months. The main takeaway there is that we are focusing more on relative value between counties and sectors while staying close to benchmark on both overall global duration and spread product exposure versus government bonds (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil Chart 1Q1/2020 Performance: Lagging, But It Could Have Been Much Worse Q1/2020 Performance: Lagging, But It Could Have Been Much Worse Q1/2020 Performance: Lagging, But It Could Have Been Much Worse As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2020 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: A Missed Rally In Sovereigns, Outperformance In Credit The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the first quarter was -0.1%, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -40bps (Chart 1).1 That relative underperformance came from the government bond side of the portfolio, while our spread product allocation outperformed the benchmark. US Treasuries underperformed the most (-91bps) with losses concentrated in the +10 year maturity bucket. (Table 2). After US Treasuries, euro area high-yield corporates were the second worst performer, underperforming the benchmark by -10bps. Outperformance in spread product was driven by US investment grade industrials (+22bps) and EM credit (+20bps). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil The potential losses to our model portfolio were greatly mitigated by changes in positioning during the quarter. Our decision to raise overall global duration exposure to neutral at the beginning of March helped shield the portfolio as yields plummeted.2 We followed this by upgrading sovereign debt in the US and Canada, both higher-beta countries, to overweight while moving to an underweight stance on US high-yield debt, euro area investment-grade and high-yield debt, and emerging market (EM) USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt.3 In an environment of rampant uncertainty, these allocation changes helped prevent catastrophic losses in the model portfolio that had previously been positioned for a pickup in global growth. The potential losses to our model portfolio were greatly mitigated by changes in positioning during the quarter. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -91bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +51bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil The most significant movers were: Biggest Outperformers Overweight US investment grade industrials (+22bps) Underweight euro area investment grade corporate bonds (+16bps) Underweight EM USD-denominated corporates (+12bps) Overweight US investment grade financials (+10bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (+8bps) Biggest Underperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (-36bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 3-5 years (-17bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-16bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 1-3 years (-13bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-12bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2020. The returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1/2020 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral).4 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Predictably, government debt performed the best in Q1/2020 as global bond yields fell and monetary authorities raced to support economies and inject liquidity. UK, US, and Canadian government debt delivered the best returns this quarter. While we started the year neutral or underweight those assets, we moved to an overweight allocation in March, which helped salvage some returns. Also worth noting is that Australian government debt, where we have maintained a structural overweight stance, was one of the top performing markets during the first quarter. The deepest losses were sustained in EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt, and euro area high-yield. Although it seems a distant memory at this point, we did start this quarter on an optimistic note and expected spreads on these products to narrow as global growth picked up. However, we were able to shield our portfolio against excessive losses in these products by moving to an underweight stance in March once the severity of the COVID-19 global economic shock become apparent. Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index during the first quarter of the year. The underperformance was concentrated in government bonds, which rallied on the back of the global pandemic. However, the portfolio outperformed the benchmark in spread products, where the combination of massive fiscal/monetary easing and direct central bank asset purchases have brought credit spreads under control. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Typically, in these quarterly performance reviews of our model bond portfolio, we attempt to make return forecasts for the portfolio based off scenario analysis and quantitative predictions of various fixed income asset classes. In the current unprecedented economic and financial market environment, however, we are reluctant to rely on model coefficients and correlations to estimate expected returns. Instead, in this report, we will focus on discussing the logic behind our current model portfolio positioning and how those allocations should expect to contribute to the overall portfolio performance over the next six months. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: Our recommended overweight stance on US spread product that is backstopped by the Fed—US investment grade corporates, Agency CMBS, and Ba-rated high-yield; Our recommended overweight stance on relatively higher-yielding sovereigns like the US and Italy; Our recommended underweight stance on EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns, where the specter of defaults and liquidity crunches looms. In terms of specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we have moderated our stance on global spread product since our previous review of the portfolio.5 While the monetary liquidity backdrop is highly bullish, with central banks aggressively buying bonds and keeping policy rates at the zero lower bound, it is still unclear if and when economies will be able to successfully reopen and put an end to the COVID-19 recession. We are now recommending only a small relative overweight of two percentage points for spread product versus the benchmark index (Chart 5), leaving room to add more should the news on the virus and global growth take a turn for the better. Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Slightly Overweight Credit GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil We also remain neutral on overall portfolio duration exposure. Our Global Duration Indicator, which contains growth data like our global leading economic indicator and the global ZEW expectations index, has plunged and is signaling bond yields will stay depressed over the next six months (Chart 6). Yet at the same time, yields in most countries have been unable to hit new lows after the panic-driven bond rally in late February and early March, even as global oil prices have collapsed and inflation expectations remain depressed, suggesting that yields already discount a lot of bad news. Chart 6Our Duration Indicator Is Signaling Government Bond Yields Will Stay Low Our Duration Indicator Is Signaling Government Bond Yields Will Stay Low Our Duration Indicator Is Signaling Government Bond Yields Will Stay Low We do not see much value in taking a big directional bet on yields through overall duration exposure at the present time. We also think it is far too early to contemplate reducing duration – even with many global equity and credit markets having rallied sharply off the lows – given the persistent uncertainty over the timing of a recovery in global growth. Thus, we are maintaining a neutral overall portfolio exposure (Chart 7). Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: At Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: At Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: At Benchmark Chart 8Country Allocation: Favor Those With Higher Betas To Global Yields Country Allocation: Favor Those With Higher Betas To Global Yields Country Allocation: Favor Those With Higher Betas To Global Yields Within the government bond side of the model bond portfolio, we recommend focusing more on country allocation to generate outperformance. That means concentrating exposures in relatively higher yielding markets like the US, Canada and peripheral Europe while maintaining underweights in core Europe and Japan, where yields have relatively little room to fall. That allocation also lines up with the sensitivity of each market to changes in the overall level of global bond yields, i.e. the yield beta (Chart 8). By favoring those higher beta markets, the model portfolio would still benefit from a renewed leg down in global bond yields, while still maintaining an overall neutral level of portfolio duration. By favoring those higher beta markets, the model portfolio would still benefit from a renewed leg down in global bond yields. Turning to spread product allocations, we recommend focusing more on policymaker responses to the COVID-19 recession rather than the downturn itself. Yes, the earlier widening of global high-yield spreads is forecasting a sharp plunge in global growth and rising unemployment rates (Chart 9, top panel). At the same time, the now double-digit year-over-year growth in global central bank balance sheets - a measure that has led global high-yield bond excess returns by one year in the years after the Global Financial Crisis (bottom panel) – is pointing to a period of improved global corporate bond market performance over the next 6-12 months. Chart 9Global Corporate Performance Should Benefit From Global QE Global Corporate Performance Should Benefit From Global QE Global Corporate Performance Should Benefit From Global QE In other words, we are focusing on global QE rather than global recession, while maintaining a modest recommended overall weighting on global spread product. Chart 10Credit Allocation: Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying Credit Allocation: Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying Credit Allocation: Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying That allocation could be larger, but we suggest picking the lowest hanging fruit in the credit universe rather than going for the highest beta credit markets. That means concentrating spread product allocations on the parts of global credit markets where central banks are directly buying (Chart 10). We are focusing on global QE rather than global recession, while maintaining a modest recommended overall weighting on global spread product. In the US, that means overweighting US investment grade corporate bonds (particularly those with maturities of less than five years), US Ba-rated high-yield that the Fed is now allowed to hold in its corporate bond buying program, and euro area investment grade corporate bonds (excluding bank debt) that the ECB is also buying in its increased bond purchase programs. Chart 11Stay Underweight EM Credit Stay Underweight EM Credit Stay Underweight EM Credit One new change we are making this week is upgrading US agency commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) to overweight, funding by a reduction in US agency residential mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to underweight. While the Fed is still buying agency MBS debt in its new QE programs, MBS spreads have already compressed substantially and are now exposed to potential refinancing risk as eligible US homeowners look to take advantage of the recent plunge in US mortgage rates. We prefer to increase the allocation to agency CMBS, which the Fed can now buy within its expanded QE programs and which offer more attractive spreads than agency MBS (middle panel). One part of the spread product universe where we continue to recommend an underweight stance is USD-denominated EM corporate and sovereign debt. The time to buy those markets will be when the US dollar has clearly peaked and global growth has clearly bottomed. Neither of those conditions is in place now, with the price momentum in both the EM currency index and the trade-weighted US dollar still tilted towards a stronger greenback. That backdrop is unlikely to change in the next few months, suggesting a defensive stance on EM credit is still warranted (Chart 11). A defensive stance on EM credit is still warranted. Model bond portfolio yield and tracking error considerations The selective global government bond and credit portfolio we have just outlined does not come without a cost. While we are currently overweight countries with higher-yielding government bonds, our underweight positions on riskier spread product like EM debt and lower-rated US junk bonds bring the yield of our model portfolio down to 1.8%, –15bps below the yield of the model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 12). We feel that is an acceptable level of “negative carry” given the still heightened levels of uncertainty over global growth. This leads us to focus more on relative value between countries and sectors to generate outperformance that we expect to offset the impact of underweighting the highest yielding credit markets. Chart 12Portfolio Yield: Moderately Below Benchmark Portfolio Yield: Moderately Below Benchmark Portfolio Yield: Moderately Below Benchmark Chart 13Portfolio Volatility: Currently High, But Expected To Fall Portfolio Volatility: Currently High, But Expected To Fall Portfolio Volatility: Currently High, But Expected To Fall Finally, turning to the risk budget of the model portfolio, we are aiming for a “moderate” overall tracking error, or the gap between the portfolio’s volatility and that of the benchmark index. However, given our pro-risk positioning in the first two months of 2020, combined with the extreme volatility in markets during the first quarter, the realized portfolio tracking error blew through our self-imposed ceiling of 100bps (Chart 13). We expect this to settle down in the coming months as the recent changes in our positioning start to be reflected in the trailing volatility of our portfolio. Bottom Line: Given the ongoing uncertainty over when the COVID-19 pandemic and economy-crushing global lockdown will end, we are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure. Instead, we recommend focusing more on country allocation and spread product relative value to generate outperformance, favoring markets where there is direct involvement from central banks.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate shaktis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "What Bond Investors Should Do After The 'Great Correction'", dated March 3 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Train Is Empty", dated March 10, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q1/2020 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Praise Credit & Blame Duration", dated January 14, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: While it’s possible that we are close to the US economic trough, we don’t see any immediate upside in Treasury yields. Investors should keep portfolio duration at benchmark and await signs of recovery in our preferred global growth indicators. Spread Product: Investors should buy spread products that offer attractive spreads relative to history and that benefit from Fed support. We favor: Aaa non-agency CMBS, Agency CMBS, Aaa ABS, municipal bonds and investment grade corporate bonds. High-Yield: We recommend an overweight allocation to Ba-rated high-yield corporates and an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds rated B and lower. Ba-rated bonds will benefit from Fed support and value in the B-rated and below credit tiers does not adequately compensate for likely default losses. Feature Chart 1Fed Actions Spur Rally Fed Actions Spur Rally Fed Actions Spur Rally Even though the economy remains closed and most of us are still confined to our homes, the mood in financial markets has shifted during the past few weeks. Risk assets are rallying as investors react to a cresting in the number of new COVID-19 cases and an unprecedented fiscal and monetary response. Since the Fed announced that it would step into the corporate bond market on March 23, equities have outpaced Treasuries by 28% and high-yield bonds have beaten the Treasury benchmark by 15% (Chart 1). Treasury securities initially rallied after the landmark Fed announcement but have only kept pace with cash during the past two weeks (Chart 1, bottom panel). This reversal in markets begs the question: Is the bottom already in? In this week’s report we ask that question about several different US bond sectors. Too Early To Call The Bottom In Treasury Yields At least in the Treasury market, we think it is premature to call the bottom in yields. Chart 2The Depths Of The Downturn The Depths Of The Downturn The Depths Of The Downturn In prior reports we outlined a checklist to call the trough in Treasury yields.1 Two of the items on that checklist were: a severe deterioration in the US economic data and signs of economic recovery in the rest of the world, particularly in those places where the pandemic struck first – like China. We are certainly now seeing the bad US economic data. The Economic Surprise Index is just off its all-time low and a composite of 10 high-frequency economic indicators compiled by the New York Federal Reserve is at its lowest point since the series began in 2008 (Chart 2). Similarly, weekly initial jobless claims set a record three weeks ago. Though they remain extremely elevated, new claims have declined in each of the past two weeks (Chart 2, bottom panel). All this at least raises the possibility that we are close to the trough in US economic growth. However, our second criterion of improving demand outside the US, particularly in China, has not been met. This is crucial because bond investors will need to see that there is light at the end of the tunnel before concluding that US economic activity will trend higher. China’s Manufacturing PMI bounced to just above 50 in March, suggesting that only a small majority of firms experienced better economic conditions in March compared to February. China’s credit impulse is advancing, demonstrating that policymakers are pumping a large amount of stimulus into the economy. But high-frequency growth barometers – like the CRB Raw Industrials index, the performance of cyclical versus defensive equity sectors and the trend in Emerging Market currencies – all remain downbeat (Chart 3). Bond investors will need to see improving demand outside the US before concluding that US economic activity will trend higher. For Treasury yields, the broad CRB Raw Industrials commodity benchmark is particularly important. This is because the ratio between the CRB index and the price of gold closely tracks the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 4). In a typical economic downturn, we first see Treasury yields and the CRB index fall together as global demand weakens. Then, monetary policy responds by turning more accommodative, leading to a rebound in the price of gold as investors start to reckon with the potential long-run inflationary impact of monetary stimulus. Eventually, bond yields will bottom. But this will only occur once the stimulus seeps through to the real economy and gains in the CRB index start to outpace gains in gold. Chart 3No Global Growth Recovery Yet No Global Growth Recovery Yet No Global Growth Recovery Yet Chart 4Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Track The CRB/Gold Ratio The dynamic described above means that we should expect Treasury yields to lag risk assets as the market bottoms. In other words, we will see a sustained rebound in equity prices and corporate bond excess returns before Treasury yields move meaningfully higher. This is especially true in this cycle because the Fed has indicated that it will be slow to shift away from its accommodative policy stance. Bottom Line: While it’s possible that we are close to the US economic trough, we don’t see any immediate upside in Treasury yields. Investors should keep portfolio duration at benchmark and await signs of recovery in our preferred global growth indicators. To hedge against the risk of higher Treasury yields without making a large duration bet, investors should implement duration-neutral curve steepeners. We recommend going long the 5-year bullet and short the duration-matched 2/10 barbell.2 Is The Bottom In For Investment Grade Spread Product Excess Returns? We hesitate to call the bottom in overall spread product returns versus Treasuries. However, we do see many buying opportunities in specific US fixed income sectors. In deciding which sectors to own, we advise investors to search for sectors that: (A)  Have attractive spreads and (B)  Benefit from one or more of the Fed’s recently announced programs We described each of the Fed’s different lending facilities in last week’s Special Report, and will not repeat that exercise this week.3 Instead, we run through a list of sectors where we think spreads have already peaked and that bond investors should own today. Aaa CMBS Aaa-rated CMBS, both non-agency and agency-backed, meet our two criteria of offering attractive spreads and benefiting from Fed support (Chart 5). The Aaa non-agency CMBS index spread is 119 bps wider than at the end of 2019, and the securities can be used as collateral under the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF). Specifically, bondholders can borrow from TALF against their Aaa non-agency CMBS collateral at a rate of OIS + 125 bps (Chart 5, panel 2). TALF will also impose a haircut of around 15% on CMBS collateral. Chart 5Buy Aaa CMBS Buy Aaa CMBS Buy Aaa CMBS Agency-backed CMBS are even more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. The Agency CMBS index spread is 50 bps above its end-2019 level and the Fed is directly purchasing Agency CMBS as part of its ongoing mortgage-backed securities purchases. As of April 15, the Fed had purchased $5.7 billion of Agency CMBS since it announced CMBS purchases on March 23. The outstanding par value of the Bloomberg Barclays Agency CMBS index is about $204 billion. If the Fed’s current pace of purchases continues for one year, it will own just under half of the index’s par value. Aaa ABS Though the spread is not quite as attractive as for Aaa non-agency CMBS, the spread on Aaa-rated consumer ABS is 115 bps wider since the end of 2019 (Chart 6). As with CMBS, this sector also benefits from TALF with an interest rate of OIS + 125 bps, and an even smaller haircut. Chart 6Buy Aaa Consumer ABS & Munis Buy Aaa Consumer ABS & Munis Buy Aaa Consumer ABS & Munis Municipal Bonds We also like the opportunity in municipal bonds. Spreads between Aaa-rated municipal bond yields and Treasuries have come down off their recent all-time highs but remain attractive compared to historical levels (Chart 6, bottom panel). The Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) offers direct 2-year loans to state & local governments. This will provide a back-stop for municipal debt with a maturity of 2 years or less but will also help municipalities meet interest payments on longer-maturity bonds when they are due. Aaa-rated CMBS, both non-agency and agency-backed, meet our two criteria of offering attractive spreads and benefit­ing from Fed support. We would therefore advise investors to buy municipal bonds at both the short and long ends of the curve. We also do not rule out further Fed measures to support the municipal bond market in the coming weeks, possibly even secondary market bond purchases. The amount of Fed support for state & local governments so far is much less than what is being done for the corporate sector. There is also no convincing moral hazard argument against scaling-up support for investment grade rated munis, especially when the Fed is already supporting some parts of the high-yield corporate market. Investment Grade Corporates As mentioned above, the Fed is providing an exceptional amount of policy support to the investment grade corporate bond market, mainly through three facilities: The Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) that will purchase corporate bonds and ETFs in the secondary market. The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) that will purchase new bond issues in the primary market. The Main Street New and Expanded Lending Facilities (MSNLF & MSELF) that will purchase corporate loans from banks, removing them from bank balance sheets. All three of these facilities support the investment grade corporate bond market, and investment grade corporate spreads remain elevated compared to history across all credit tiers (Chart 7). Chart 7Buy Investment Grade Corporates Buy Investment Grade Corporates Buy Investment Grade Corporates Bottom Line: Investors should buy spread products that offer attractive spreads relative to history and that benefit from Fed support. We favor: Aaa non-agency CMBS, Agency CMBS, Aaa ABS, municipal bonds and investment grade corporate bonds. Have High-Yield Spreads Already Peaked? In the high-yield market we follow the same rules we applied in the previous section. We want to buy sectors that have attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. Within high-yield, the Ba credit tier meets these criteria as it offers an elevated spread and loans to Ba-rated issuers are eligible under the MSNLF and MSELF. The SMCCF will also purchase some high-yield ETFs and both the SMCCF and PMCCF will purchase securities that were recently downgraded to Ba from Baa. However, for the most part, securities rated B and below will not benefit from the Fed’s new facilities and thus will trade purely on fundamentals.4 This demarcation between securities rated Ba and above and those rated B and below is already showing up in excess returns. Since the Fed first announced corporate bond purchases on March 23, Ba-rated junk bonds have outperformed Treasuries by 16.88%, beating B-rated bonds (13.84%), Caa-rated bonds (9.53%) and the lowest Ca/C-rated credit tier (6.85%) (Table 1). Table 1Corporate Bond Performance Since Announcement Of Fed Purchases Is The Bottom Already In? Is The Bottom Already In? Assessing High-Yield Fundamentals Even without Fed support, lower-tier junk bonds are still worth buying if spreads provide adequate compensation for expected defaults. We assessed the likely magnitude of the looming default cycle in a recent Special Report.5 One main conclusion from that report is that, due to elevated corporate sector leverage, the recovery rate on defaulted debt will likely be low during the next 12 months – on the order of 20-25%. Second, based on the expected magnitude and duration of the current economic shock, we expect a significant surge in the speculative grade corporate default rate during the next 12 months, likely hitting a range of 9%-13%. Even without Fed support, lower-tier junk bonds are still worth buying if spreads provide adequate compensation for expected defaults.  With these default loss assumptions in hand, we can see what sort of buffer is priced into different high-yield credit tiers. Charts 8-10 show calendar-year excess returns for Ba, B and Caa-C high-yield credit tiers on the vertical axes. On the horizontal axes, the charts show the index spread at the start of the 12-month investment horizon less realized default losses over the course of the year.6 Chart 8Ba Default-Adjusted Spread Is The Bottom Already In? Is The Bottom Already In? Chart 9B Default-Adjusted Spread Is The Bottom Already In? Is The Bottom Already In? Chart 10Caa-C Default-Adjusted Spread Is The Bottom Already In? Is The Bottom Already In? We first observe that a Default-Adjusted Spread below 200 bps usually coincides with negative excess returns for all three credit tiers. In fact, for the Caa-C tier, we’d like to see a Default-Adjusted Spread above 500 bps before going long. Second, the green diamonds in all three charts identify likely outcomes for the next 12 months in three different default loss scenarios. The “Mild Scenario” is defined as a 6% speculative grade default rate and 25% recovery rate. The “Moderate Scenario” is defined as a 9% speculative grade default rate and 25% recovery rate. The “Severe Scenario” is defined as a 12% default rate and 25% recovery rate.7 Based on those choices, we’d place our base case default loss assumptions for the next 12 months somewhere between the Moderate and Severe scenarios. Charts 8-10 clearly show that, while Ba-rated issuers might still perform decently, the B-rated and below credit tiers are not priced at all for our base case default outlook. Note that this analysis does not consider Fed support in any way. Factoring that in, Ba-rated bonds look even better compared to bonds rated B and below. Bottom Line: We recommend an overweight allocation to Ba-rated high-yield corporates and an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds rated B and lower. Ba-rated bonds will benefit from Fed support and value in the B-rated and below credit tiers does not adequately compensate for likely default losses.    Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When And Where Will Bond Yields Trough?”, dated March 10, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on why we recommend this yield curve positioning please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Life At The Zero Bound”, dated March 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Investment Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures”, dated April 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 As we noted in last week’s Special Report, some B-rated issuers will benefit from the MSELF. But this support is minor compared to what is being offered to securities rated Ba and higher. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis”, dated March 31, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6  We use Ba and Caa-C default losses for those credit tiers. For B-rated bonds, we found that overall speculative grade default losses work slightly better than default losses for the B credit tier specifically. 7 We use historical correlations to translate overall speculative grade default rate assumptions into default rate assumptions for the Ba and Caa-C credit tiers. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Risk assets have rallied thanks to a healthy dose of economic stimulus and mounting evidence that the number of new COVID-19 cases has peaked. Unfortunately, the odds of a second wave of infections remain high. In the absence of a vaccine or effective treatment, only mass testing can keep the virus at bay. Such testing will become available, but probably not for a few more months.  Meanwhile, the global economy remains depressed. As earnings estimates are revised lower, stocks could give up some of their recent gains. Despite the fact that the supply of goods and services has fallen sharply during this recession, the overall effect has been deflationary. Deflationary pressures should subside later this year as demand picks up, commodity prices rise, and the US dollar weakens. Looking several years out, deglobalization and the increasing politicization of central banking could lead to accelerating inflation. Long-term investors should maintain a structurally below-benchmark duration stance in fixed-income portfolios, and position for steeper yield curves. Now What? Imagine being chased through the woods by an angry bear. You manage to climb a tree, getting high enough so that the bear cannot reach you. You breathe a sigh of relief. You are out of harm's way. Or so you think. You look down, and the bear is waiting for you at the base of the tree. You have no weapons. You feel cold and hungry. It is getting dark. This is the state the world finds itself in today. We have climbed up the tree. The number of new infections has peaked in Italy and Spain, the first large European countries hit by the virus. Hospital admissions in New York are falling. This, combined with a generous dose of economic stimulus, has allowed stocks to rally by 28% from their March 23 intraday lows. Yet, we have neither a vaccine nor a cure for the virus (although as we go to press, unconfirmed news reports suggest that Gilead’s drug, remdesivir, has had success in treating patients at a Chicago hospital). Chart 1Widespread Social Distancing Dampened The Spread Of All Flus And Colds Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree COVID-19 is part of the coronavirus family, which includes four members that are responsible for up to 30% of common colds (most other colds are caused by rhino-viruses). Social distancing has driven the number of cold and influenza-like cases in the US to very low levels (Chart 1). But does anyone really think that the common cold or flu will be permanently eradicated because of recent measures? If not, what will prevent COVID-19, which is no less contagious than these other illnesses, from resurfacing? In short, the bear is still there, waiting for us to reopen the economy. A Deep Recession As we wait, the economic damage continues to mount. The IMF’s baseline scenario foresees the global economy contracting by 3% in 2020, with advanced economies shrinking by 6.1%. This is far deeper than during the 2008/09 financial crisis (Chart 2). The IMF’s projections assume that the pandemic subsides in the second half of 2020, allowing containment measures to be relaxed. If the pandemic were to last longer than that, global output would fall by an additional 3% in 2020 relative to the Fund’s already bleak baseline. A second outbreak next year would push global GDP almost 5% below the IMF’s baseline in 2021, while the combination of a longer outbreak this year and a second outbreak next year would cause the level of output to fall 8% below the 2021 baseline (Chart 3). Chart 2Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year Chart 3Downside Risks To The IMF's Projections Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree The Ties That Bind The sudden stop in economic activity has led to a dramatic surge in unemployment. US initial unemployment claims have risen by a cumulative 22 million over the past four weeks. The true scale of layoffs is probably higher than that, given that some state websites have been unable to handle the flood of insurance applications. Chart 4Only About One-Third Of Those Who Lose Their Jobs Apply For Benefits Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Historically, only about one-third of those laid off have applied for benefits (Chart 4). While the take-up rate will be higher this time – the CARES Act increases weekly unemployment compensation, while expanding eligibility to self-employed workers – it is still reasonable to assume that the claims data do not capture how much of the workforce has been laid idle. The one piece of good news is that at least so far, temporarily laid-off workers account for the vast majority of the increase in unemployment. This is encouraging because it implies that in most cases, the ties that bind workers to firms have not been permanently severed. In this respect, the recovery in employment following this recession may end up resembling that of another “man-made” recession: the 1982 downturn (Chart 5). Back then, policymakers felt that a recession was a price worth paying to quash inflation. Once inflation fell, central banks were able to cut rates, allowing economic activity to recover. Today, the hope is that by shutting down all nonessential businesses, the virus will be quashed, and life will return to normal. Chart 5Comparing The 1982 Recession Versus Today: Employment Edition Comparing The 1982 Recession Versus Today: Employment Edition Comparing The 1982 Recession Versus Today: Employment Edition Exit Plans It remains to be seen whether vanquishing the virus will be as straightforward as vanquishing inflation was in the early 1980s. As we noted last week, in the absence of a vaccine or an effective treatment, our best hope is that mass testing will allow businesses to reopen.1 The technology for such tests already exists; it just has yet to become available on a large enough scale. Just like during the Second World War, the production of weapons necessary to fight the virus will grow at an exponential pace (Chart 6). Chart 6Now Let's Do The Same For Test Kits Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Near-Term Pressures On Risk Assets Exponential change is a difficult concept for the human mind to grasp. What seems painfully slow at first can quickly become unfathomably fast later on. The apocryphal story about the origins of the game of chess comes to mind.2 This puts investors in a bit of a quandary. Growth is likely to recover in the latter half of 2020 as COVID-19 testing becomes pervasive and the effects of fiscal and monetary stimulus make their way through the economy. But, the near-term picture could be soured by news stories of continued acute shortages of medical supplies and delays in providing financial assistance to hard-hit households and businesses, not to mention dire corporate earnings performance. The one piece of good news is that at least so far, temporarily laid-off workers account for the vast majority of the increase in unemployment. Indeed, bottom-up analyst earnings estimates still have further to fall. The Wall Street consensus expects S&P 500 companies to earn $142 per share this year and $174 in 2021. Our US equity strategists are projecting only $100 and $140 in EPS, respectively. Stock prices and earnings estimates generally travel together (Chart 7). On balance, we continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon, owing to the fact that the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield is quite a bit higher than the bond yield (Chart 8). However, we have less conviction about the near-term (3-month) direction of stocks, and would recommend that investors maintain above-average cash levels for now which can be deployed on any major selloff. Chart 7Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term Chart 8Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon   Inflation And Supply Shocks: A Keynesian Paradox? One of the distinguishing features of this recession is that it has involved a simultaneous supply shock and a demand shock. Businesses have had to curb supply in order to allow workers to stay at home, while workers have reduced spending out of fear of going to stores or other venues where they could inadvertently contract the virus. Worries about job losses have further dented demand.  There is no question about what happens to output when both demand and supply decline: output falls. In contrast, the impact on the price level depends on which shock dominates (Chart 9). Chart 9Inflation And Supply Shocks Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree As Appendix 1 illustrates with a set of simple numerical examples, in theory, a negative supply shock spread evenly across all sectors of the economy should cause the price level to rise. This is because unemployed workers, who are no longer contributing to output, will still end up consuming some goods and services by tapping into their savings, taking on new debt, or by receiving income transfers from the government. In the current situation, however, the supply shock has not been spread evenly throughout the economy. Some businesses have been completely shuttered, while others deemed essential have been allowed to operate. As the appendix shows, in such cases, the drop in aggregate demand is likely to be larger than if all sectors were equally impacted. In fact, it is possible for a supply shock to trigger a demand shock that is larger than the supply shock itself, leading to a perverse situation where a decline in supply results in a surfeit of output. A recent paper by Guerrieri, Lorenzoni, Straub, and Werning argues that the current pandemic represents such a “Keynesian supply shock.”3 Intuitively, such perverse supply shocks can arise if workers are cut off from purchasing many of the goods that they would normally buy. When the menu of available goods shrinks, even workers who are still employed could end up saving much of their income. Deflationary For Now All this implies that the pandemic is likely to be deflationary until more businesses reopen. The data seem to bear this out. The US core consumer price index fell by 0.1% month-over-month in March on a seasonally adjusted basis, led by steep declines in airfares and hotel lodging prices. High-frequency indicators, as well as the prices paid components of various purchasing manager indices, suggest that deflationary pressures have persisted into April (Chart 10). Chart 10Deflation Reigns For Now Deflation Reigns For Now Deflation Reigns For Now Shelter inflation was reasonably firm in March but should soften over the coming months. A number of major apartment operators have announced rent freezes. In addition, the lagged effects from a stronger dollar and lower energy prices will contribute to lower goods inflation, while higher unemployment will hold back service inflation. Inflation Should Bounce Back In 2021 The discussion of Keynesian supply shocks suggests that aggregate demand will increase faster than supply as more sectors of the economy reopen. This should ease deflationary pressures. In addition, a rebound in global growth starting in the second half of 2020 will prompt a recovery in commodity prices. The forward oil curve is predicting that Brent and WTI crude prices will rise by 42% and 79%, respectively, over the next 12 months (Chart 11). Inflation expectations and oil prices tend to move closely together (Chart 12). Chart 11H2 2020 Rebound In Growth Will Lift Oil Prices H2 2020 Rebound In Growth Will Lift Oil Prices H2 2020 Rebound In Growth Will Lift Oil Prices Chart 12Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Tend To Move Closely Together Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Tend To Move Closely Together Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Tend To Move Closely Together As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar will weaken over the next 12-to-18 months as global growth rebounds, providing an additional reflationary impulse (Chart 13). Falling unemployment will also eat into labor market slack, helping to support wages. Chart 13Stronger Global Growth In The Back Half Of The Year Will Weaken The Dollar, Putting Upward Pressure On US Inflation Stronger Global Growth In The Back Half Of The Year Will Weaken The Dollar, Putting Upward Pressure On US Inflation Stronger Global Growth In The Back Half Of The Year Will Weaken The Dollar, Putting Upward Pressure On US Inflation The Structural Outlook For Inflation… And Bond Yields Looking further out, the outlook for inflation will depend on whether the structural forces that have suppressed the rise in consumer prices over the past few decades intensify or abate. On the one hand, it is possible that the pandemic will cast a pall over consumer and business sentiment for years to come. If households and firms restrain spending, this would exacerbate deflationary pressures. Likewise, if governments tighten fiscal policy in order to pay off the debts incurred during the pandemic, this could weigh on growth. On the other hand, high government debt levels may increase the political pressure on central banks to keep rates low, even once the labor market recovers. This could eventually lead to economic overheating in two-to-three years. Chart 14Global Trade Was Already Stagnating Global Trade Was Already Stagnating Global Trade Was Already Stagnating A partial roll back in globalization could also cause consumer prices to rise. Global trade was already stagnant even before the trade war flared up (Chart 14). The pandemic may further inflame nationalist sentiment. Against the backdrop of high unemployment, Donald Trump is likely to campaign as a “war president,” relentlessly chiding Joe Biden for having too cozy a relationship with China. On balance, we suspect that inflation will rise more than expected over the long haul. This is not a particularly high bar to clear. Investors currently expect US inflation to average only 1.2% over the next decade based on TIPS breakevens. Market-based inflation expectations are even more subdued in most other advanced economies. If inflation does surprise to the upside, long-term bond yields are likely to increase by more than expected. Investors should maintain a structurally below-benchmark duration stance in fixed-income portfolios, and position for steeper yield curves.   APPENDIX 1: Keynesian Supply Shocks Suppose there are two sectors, A and B. The economy consists of 2,000 workers, with each sector employing 1,000 workers. To keep things simple, assume that workers in each sector evenly split their consumption between the two sectors. Thus, a worker in sector A spends as much on goods from sector A as from sector B, and vice versa. Also assume that each worker, if employed, produces $1,000 of goods and receives a salary of $1,000 for his or her efforts. With this in mind, let us consider three scenarios: Scenario 1: Both Sectors Are Open For Business In this scenario, $1 million of good A and $1 million of good B are produced and supplied to the market. Since each of the 2,000 workers spends $500 on good A and $500 on good B, a total of $1 million of both goods are demanded. Aggregate demand equals aggregate supply. Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Scenario 2: Partial Closure Of Both Sectors Suppose that half the workers in both sectors are laid off. While the unemployed workers do not earn any income, they still spend half as much as they used to by tapping into their savings ($250 on good A and $250 on good B for each unemployed worker). Each employed worker continues to spend $500 on good A and $500 on good B. Now there is $500,000 in total of each good produced, but $750,000 of each good demanded. Aggregate demand exceeds supply. Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Scenario 3: Sector A, Deemed The Essential Sector, Remains Completely Open, While B Is Closed In this case, all sector A workers are still employed, earning $1,000 each. Since good B is no longer available for purchase, sector A workers increase spending on good A by 20% (from $500 to $600 per worker). Workers in sector B are all unemployed. However, they continue to tap into their savings. Rather than spending $250 on good A as they did in scenario 2, they increase their expenditures on good A by 20% (from $250 to $300). A total of $900,000 of good A is now demanded ($600*1,000+$300*1,000), which is less than the $1 million of good A supplied. Aggregate supply now exceeds demand for the part of the economy that is still open. The chart and table below summarize the results. The key insight is that a 50% shock to the entire economy curbs aggregate demand less than a 100% shock to half the economy. This implies that demand is likely to grow faster than supply as mass testing allows more of the economy to reopen. Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Testing Times,” dated April 9, 2020. 2  In one account, the King of India was so impressed when the game of chess was demonstrated to him that he offered its inventor any reward he desired. After thinking for a while, the inventor said “Your Highness, please give me one grain of rice for the first square on the chessboard, two grains for the next square, four grains for the one after that, doubling the number of grains until the 64th square.” Stunned that the inventor would ask for such a puny reward, the King quickly agreed. A week later, the King’s treasurer informed His Highness that he would need to give the inventor 18 quintillion grains of rice, which is more than enough rice to cover the entire planet’s surface. “Holy Ganges, what have I done?” the King exclaimed, before having the inventor executed. 3  Veronica Guerrieri, Guido Lorenzoni, Ludwig Straub, and Iván Werning, “Macroeconomic Implications of COVID-19: Can Negative Supply Shocks Cause Demand Shortages?” NBER Working Paper No. 26918 (April 2020). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Current MacroQuant Model Scores Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree