Geopolitics
An analysis on Turkey is available below. Highlights Due to the sizable stimulus announced by the NPC, we are upgrading our outlook for Chinese growth for this year. Nevertheless, in terms of investment strategy, we are reluctant to chase China-related plays higher at the moment. Rising geopolitical tensions between the US and China will likely produce a pullback in China-related risk assets, providing a better entry point in the months ahead. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. There is evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors worldwide. Such retail-driven manias never end well, though they can last for a while. Feature Emerging market equities are facing a critical technical resistance. Chart I-1 shows that over the past decade, EM share prices often found support at the horizontal line during selloffs. The latter could now become a resistance point. In turn, the Australian dollar and the S&P 500 have climbed to their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Stocks Are Facing A Technical Resistance Chart I-2S&P 500 And AUD Are At Critical Technical Juncture Having rallied strongly in the past two months, it is reasonable to expect that global risk assets will take a breather as investors assess the economic and geopolitical outlooks. China: Aggressive Stimulus… China has embarked on another round of aggressive stimulus. The government program approved by the National People’s Congress (NPC) last week laid out the following macro policy objectives: Stabilize employment. The NPC has pledged to create more than 9 million new jobs in urban areas. Although this is lower than last year’s target of more than 11 million new jobs, it is very ambitious given the number of layoffs that have occurred year-to-date. Chart I-3China: Money/Credit Is Set To Re-Accelerate Significantly accelerate the growth rate of broad money supply and total social financing relative to last year. Indeed, broad money growth accelerated in April and will continue to move higher (Chart I-3). Lending to enterprises and households as well as overall bank asset growth have all accelerated (Chart I-3, bottom two panels). Boost aggregate government spending (budgetary and quasi-fiscal) growth to 13.2% in 2020 versus 9.5% last year. Local government’s special bond quotas have been set at RMB 3.75 trillion yuan, compared with RMB 2.15 trillion last year. The central government will issue special bonds in the order of 1 trillion yuan. The proceeds will be transferred to local governments to support tax and fee reductions, as well as to boost consumption and investment. Support SMEs. The government will extend its beneficial loan-repayment policy for SMEs until March 2021. It will extend exemptions for SMEs on social security contributions, VAT and other fees and taxes through to the end of this year. The government estimates a total of RMB 2.5 trillion in tax and fee reductions for companies in 2020. Table I-1 details potential scenarios for the credit and fiscal spending impulse (CFI). In our baseline scenario, the CFI will rise to 15.5% of GDP by year-end (Chart I-4). In short, in 2020 the CFI will likely be larger than it was in 2015-’16 and closer to its 2012 level. However, it will still fall short of the 2009-2010 surge. Table I-1Simulation On Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse For 2020 Chart I-4Our Projections For The Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse In summary, it is fair to say that for now, the authorities have abandoned their deleveraging objective and are encouraging a substantial acceleration of both debt and credit. However, it will take time before the stimulus filters through the economy and boosts growth. This will be the case because of the following persistent headwinds: First, the reduced willingness of households and enterprises to spend. The top panel of Chart I-5 reveals that consumers’ marginal propensity to spend is falling. Enterprises’ willingness to invest continues to trend lower. Historically, companies’ willingness to invest has been a good indicator for industrial metals prices. So far it has not validated the advance in base metals (Chart I-5, bottom panel). The rationale for this correlation is that Chinese companies account for 50-55% of global industrial metals demand. Second, the COVID-19 economic downturn in China was much worse than previous downturns, and the financial health of companies and households is considerably poorer than before. This is why it will take very large amounts of stimulus to produce even a moderate recovery. In particular, a portion of the credit expansion will go toward plugging operating cash flow deficits at companies rather than to augment investment. For example, in the US, commercial and industrial loan growth surged in 2007/08 and this year (Chart I-6). In all of those cases, the underlying cause for credit acceleration was companies drawing on their credit lines to close their negative operating cashflow gaps. Chart I-5China: Households And Enterprises Are Less Willing To Spend Chart I-6US Loan Growth Spikes In Recessions The same phenomenon is presently occurring in China. This entails more credit origination will be required in China in this cycle before we witness a revival in capital spending. Third, geopolitical tensions between the US and China will escalate further in the months ahead. We elaborate on this in more detail below. As far as China’s growth outlook is concerned, rising geopolitical tensions with the US will weigh on both consumer and business confidence. On the whole, due to the sizable stimulus announced by the NPC, we are upgrading our outlook for Chinese growth for this year. Nevertheless, in terms of investment strategy, we are reluctant to chase China-related plays higher at the moment. Rising geopolitical tensions will likely produce a pullback in China-related risk assets, providing a better entry point in the months ahead. Chart I-7Chinese Economy: Still Very Weak In addition, the mainland economy is still undergoing post-lockdown normalization – not recovery. Both capital spending and household consumption are still in recession (Chart I-7). Bottom Line: China is yet again resorting to aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus. Mainland growth is bound to improve over the remainder of the year. However, financial markets have run a bit ahead of themselves, and we will wait for a pullback before recommending China-related plays. …But Geopolitics Is A Major Risk Despite an improving growth outlook, Asian and China-related risk assets could struggle in the months ahead due to escalating geopolitical tensions between the US and China. On the surface, the COVID-19 crisis seems to be the culprit behind rising tensions between the two nations. However, the pandemic has only accelerated an otherwise unavoidable confrontation between the existing superpower and the rising one. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team has been writing about cumulating tensions and the potential for them to boil over in the months before the US election. The contours of the rise in geopolitical tensions will be as follows: President Trump’s chances of re-election have declined, with the recession gripping the US economy and unemployment surging. There is little doubt that he will use external foes to rally the nation behind the flag. Blaming China for the pandemic and acting tough is probably the only way for Trump to switch his campaign’s nucleus from the economy to foreign policy, which will raise the odds of his election victory. The US administration will not resort to import tariffs this time around. Going forward, the administration’s goal will be cutting China’s access to foreign technology. Technology in general and semiconductors in particular will be the key battleground in this new cold war. The US will also step up its pressure on multinationals to move production out of China. The broader idea is to impede China’s technological advance. Even though the US rhetoric on China’s policies toward Hong Kong will be tough, there is little the US can do or will do regarding Hong Kong. Rather, the more important battleground will be Taiwan and its semiconductor industry. Finally, China’s political leadership cannot tolerate being perceived as weak domestically in the face of US pressures. They will retaliate against the US. One form of retaliation against Trump could be pushing North Korea to test its strategic military weapons that could undermine Trump’s foreign policy credibility in the US. Another form of retaliation could be tolerating moderate currency depreciation. The latter will challenge Trump’s claims that he has been victorious in dealing with China. The latest decision to ban US and foreign companies from accepting orders from Huawei and the slide in the value of the RMB are consistent with these narratives. To our surprise, however, financial markets in general and Asian markets in particular have not sold off meaningfully in response to the US ban on Huawei and renewed RMB depreciation. Critically, China is the world’s largest consumer of semiconductors, accounting for 35% of global semiconductor demand. Restricting Chinese purchases would be negative for global semiconductor producers. China has been aware of the risk of US restrictions on its imports of semiconductors and has been ramping up its semi imports since 2018. Semi imports have been booming even though smartphone sales had been shrinking (Chart I-8). This is a sign of large semiconductor restocking in China which has helped global semi sales in general and TSMC sales in particular in the past 18 months. In brief, major semi restocking by China in the past 18 months along with the ban on sales to Huawei all but ensure that global semiconductor sales will be weak this year. It does not seem that global semi stocks in general and Asian ones in particular are pricing in this outcome. Global semiconductor stocks are a hair below their all-time highs, and their trailing P/E ratio is at 21. Specifically, given Huawei is the second-largest customer of TSMC, the latter’s sales will be negatively affected (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Has China Been Stockpiling Semiconductors? Chart I-9TSMC Has Benefited From China Stockpiling Semiconductors Finally, both DRAM and NAND prices are falling anew (Chart I-10). Further, DRAM revenue proxy correlates with Korean tech stocks and points to lower share prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Semiconductor Prices Have Begun Falling Chart I-11Semiconductor Prices Are Still Deflating DRAM Revenue Proxy And Korean Tech Stocks Crucially, Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks account for 60% of the MSCI EM equity market cap. Hence, a selloff in these bourses will weigh on the EM equity index. Chart I-12 shows that the latest drawdown in these North Asian equity markets was relatively small compared to the drop in the rest of the EM equity universe. Hence, Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese share prices are not discounting a lot of bad news making them vulnerable to the geopolitical risks that lie ahead. Financial markets in Asia are very complacent to mounting geopolitical risks stemming from the US-China confrontation. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. Chart I-12North Asian Stocks Versus The Rest Of EM Bottom Line: Financial markets in Asia are very complacent to mounting geopolitical risks stemming from the US-China confrontation. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. The large share of Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks in the MSCI EM equity index implies significant downside risks to the EM equity benchmark. The Global Economic Outlook As economies around the world open, the level of economic activity will certainly begin to rise. The opening of shops, offices and various other facilities will result in a partial normalization and an increase in economic activities. However, we cannot call this a recovery. Rather it is just a snapback from the lockdowns which both equity and credit markets have already fully priced in. The outlook for global share prices and credit markets depends on what happens to the global economy following this post-lockdown snapback. Will the snapback be followed by an actual recovery or will the level of activity stagnate at low levels? For now, our sense is that following the initial snapback a U-shaped recovery is the most likely global scenario. This does not exclude the possibility that activity in some sectors/countries will follow a square root trajectory. From a global macro perspective, we have the following observations to share: Certain industries will likely experience stagflation. Due to social distancing measures, they will be forced to limit their output/capacity and compensate for their increased costs by charging higher prices. In this group, we would include airlines, restaurants, and other service sector businesses. The short-term outlook for consumer spending is contingent on fiscal stimulus. A material reduction in fiscal support for households will weigh on their spending capacity. Capital spending will remain subdued outside China’s stimulus-driven local government and SOE investment outlays, and outside the technology sector, generally. Critically, economic activity in many countries and industries will remain below pre-pandemic levels until late this year. This implies that despite the snapback, some businesses will still be operating below or close to their breakeven points. This will have ramifications on their ability to service debt and on their willingness to invest and hire. Any rise in government bond yields worldwide will be limited as central banks in both DM and EM will cap yields by augmenting their purchase of government and in some cases corporate bonds. We discussed EM QE programs in detail in last week’s report. Bottom Line: It is tempting to interpret the post-lockdown snapback in economic activity as a recovery. However, the nature and depth of this recession is unique. Investors should consider both the direction of economic indicators and the level of economic activity in relation to a company’s breakeven point. This is an extremely difficult task. And that is in addition to gauging the odds of a second wave of COVID-19 infections later this year. In the context of such complexities facing investors, there is astonishing evidence that the recent equity rally has been driven by unsophisticated retail investors. A Retail-Driven Equity Rally There is growing evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors, worldwide. There is growing evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors, worldwide. Such retail-driven manias never end well, though they can last for a while. The following articles corroborate the worldwide phenomenon that retail investors have been opening broker accounts en masse and investing in stocks: Bored Day Traders Locked at Home Are Now Obsessed With Options Frustrated sports punters turn to US stock market Coronavirus spawns new generation of Japanese stock pickers Stuck at Home, More Filipinos Try Luck at Stock Investing It is fair to assume that retail investors do very little fundamental analysis. Not surprisingly, since March global share prices have decoupled from profit expectations. Although some professional investors have no doubt also played the rally, surveys of asset managers and traders suggest that generally they have stayed lukewarm on stocks. Specifically, the net long position of asset managers and leveraged funds in various US equity index futures remains very low (Chart I-13). Chart I-14 shows that US traders’ and professional individual investors’ sentiment on US stocks are at multi-year lows. Only US investment advisors have become fairly bullish again (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Chart I-13Fund Managers Have Stayed Lukewarm On Stocks Chart I-14Professional Investors’ Sentiment On Stocks Have Been Subdued Who will capitulate first: retail or professional investors? It is hard to predict the behavior of investors but, if we had to guess, our take could be summed up as follows: If geopolitical tensions escalate much more or the number of COVID-19 inflections in some large countries rises anew, retail investors will likely sell before professional investors step in. In this scenario, share prices will drop considerably. In the case of an absence of geopolitical tensions or a new wave of infections, it is hard to see how economic data that is improving could lead to a substantial drawdown in equities even if the level of activity remains very depressed. In this case, corrections will be small and short-lived. Investment Strategy Chart I-15Beware Of Breakdowns For global equity portfolios, we continue recommending underweighting EM stocks. Regardless of the direction of global share prices, EM will continue underperforming DM (Chart I-15, top panel). The basis for this is rising geopolitical tensions in China and weakness in the RMB will spill over into other emerging Asian currencies (Chart I-15, bottom panel). We continue recommending short positions in the RMB and KRW versus the US dollar. In terms of the absolute performance of EM equities and credit markets, as well as EM currencies versus the greenback, we recommend being patient. Global and EM financial markets are presently at a critical juncture, as illustrated in Charts 1 and 2 on pages 1 and 2. If these and some other markets meaningfully break above current levels of resistance, we will upgrade our stance on EM stocks and credit markets and close our short positions in EM currencies versus the US dollar. If they fail to do so, a considerable selloff is likely to follow. As to EM local currency bonds, we are long duration but cautious on EM currencies. For the full list of our recommendations for EM equity, credit, local fixed-income and currency markets, please refer to pages 18 and 19. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, CFA Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com Turkish Lira: Facing A Litmus Test The Turkish lira has rolled over at its resistance level on a total return (including carry) basis (Chart II-1). The spot rate versus the US dollar is at its 2018 low. In short, the exchange rate is facing a litmus test. The culprit of a potential downleg in the lira is an enormous monetary deluge. Chart II-2 reveals that broad money supply growth has accelerated to 35% from a year ago. Local currency money supply is skyrocketing because the central bank and commercial banks are engaged in rampant money creation and public debt monetization. Chart II-1Turkish Lira (Including Carry): A Good Point To Short Chart II-2Turkey’s Broad Money: The Sky Is The Limit While such macro policies could benefit economic growth in the short term, they also herald growing inflationary pressures and currency devaluation. First, Turkish commercial banks have been on a government bonds buying binge since 2018 (Chart II-3, top panel). They presently own 62% of total local currency government bonds, up from 45% in early 2018. In addition, the central bank is de-facto engaging in government debt monetization. The Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) has bought TRY 40 billion of government bonds in the secondary market since March (Chart II-3, bottom panel). When a central bank or commercial bank buys a local currency asset from a non-bank, a new local currency deposit is created in the banking system and the money supply expands. Chart II-3Turkey: Public Debt Monetization In Full Force Chart II-4Turkey: Loan Growth Exceeds 30% Second, the commercial banks’ local currency loan growth has surged to 32% (Chart II-4). Government lending schemes and newly introduced regulations are incentivizing commercial banks to continue lending in order to boost domestic demand. In particular, state owned banks are providing loans at interest rates well below both the policy and inflation rates. The most likely outcome from such policies is rampant capital misallocation and an increase in non-performing loans. The former will weigh on productivity in the long turn. Third, the central bank has been providing enormous amounts of liquidity to commercial banks (Chart II-5, top panel). The latter’s local currency excess reserves – which are exclusively created out of thin air by the central bank - have surged (Chart II-5, bottom panel). In fact, the effective policy rate has been hovering below the actual policy rate, suggesting that there is an excess liquidity overflow in the banking system. In a nutshell, the central bank has been providing fuel to commercial banks to expand money supply via the purchases of local currency government bonds and loan origination. Fourth, an overly loose monetary stance will lead to higher inflation and currency devaluation. Moreover, wages continue to expand at an annual rate of 15-20%, confirming the fact that inflationary pressures are genuine and broad within this economy (Chart II-6). Higher inflation, and the consequent loss of purchasing power, is leading residents to switch their holdings of liras to foreign currencies. Chart II-5Central Banks' Liquidity Provision To Banks Chart II-6Turkey: A Sign Of Genuine Inflation Higher inflation, and the consequent loss of purchasing power, is leading residents to switch their holdings of liras to foreign currencies. Finally, Turkey’s current account deficit is set to widen, and the central bank’s net foreign currency reserves are non-existent at best. Booming credit growth will keep domestic demand and imports stronger than they otherwise would be. In the meantime, the complete collapse in tourism revenues and Turkey’s large foreign debt obligations, estimated at $160 billion over the next six months, entail negative balance of payment dynamics. Barring capital controls, Turkey will not be able to preclude further currency depreciation. Investment Implications Short the Turkish lira versus the US dollar. We recommend dedicated equity investors underweight Turkish equities and credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Also, we are reiterating our short Turkish banks / long Russian banks position. Local currency yields will offer little protection against currency depreciation. As such, investors should underweight domestic bonds. Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service argues that China is susceptible to a series of historic shifts accelerated by the pandemic. China no longer primarily channels its savings into export manufacturing. Instead it invests them at home. China’s total…
Highlights Higher OPEC 2.0 production in 2H20 – likely beginning in 3Q20 – will be required to keep Brent prices below $50/bbl going into the US presidential elections, which arguably is the primary driver of prices in the 2020 post-COVID-19 recovery. Larger-than-expected OPEC 2.0 production cuts announced this month will force deeper inventory draws beginning in 3Q20. The re-opening of global economies and promising vaccine developments notwithstanding, we continue to expect an 8mm b/d hit to oil consumption this year, followed by an 8mm b/d recovery in demand next year. Brent prices likely will trade slightly higher than we forecast last month – $40/bbl this year, on average, vs. a $39/bbl forecast last month, and $68/bbl next year, $3/bbl above April’s forecast. We expect WTI to trade $2 - $4/bbl below Brent (Chart of the Week). Two-way price risk is high: The likelihood demand will surprise to the upside cannot be ignored, but it could collapse with a second COVID-19 wave forcing lockdowns again. On the supply side, the hurricane season is off to an early start in the US, with the first tropical storm, Arthur, named this week. Feature Chart of the WeekOil-Price Recovery In 2H20, 2021 Chart 2OPEC 2.0 Delivers Massive Production Cuts Political considerations – i.e., keeping crude oil prices below $50/bbl so as not to spike gasoline prices going into the US presidential elections – will drive the evolution of crude oil prices. The big driver of oil prices over the short term is what we know with the least uncertainty. Right now, that’s what's happening on the supply side over the next couple of months. Slightly further out – as November approaches, to be precise – the political economy of oil once again will dominate fundamentals. Political considerations – i.e., keeping crude oil prices below $50/bbl so as not to spike gasoline prices going into the US presidential elections – will drive the evolution of crude oil prices. That is why, we believe, the massive voluntary cuts announced by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and its Gulf allies earlier this month – amounting to ~ 1.2mm b/d of cuts in addition to those agreed by OPEC 2.0 in April – are so important: The global inventory overhang produced by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the short-lived market-share war launched by Russia in March, has to be unwound as quickly as possible, before the US presidential elections kick into high gear. Holding to the schedule agreed in April would drain inventories, but not fast enough by September to prevent further distress for OPEC 2.0 member states as the year winds down.1 By then, additional cuts would be highly problematic, given US President Donald Trump almost surely will be demanding higher OPEC production to keep gasoline prices down as voters go to the polls in November. KSA announced plans to reduce production by ~ 4.5mm b/d vs. its April level of 12mm b/d starting in June, taking its output to ~ 7.5mm b/d. This cut is 1mm b/d more than what it agreed to last month to balance the oil market. The UAE and Kuwait also voluntarily added cuts of 100k and 80k b/d, respectively, to their agreed quotas. Production cuts by OPEC 2.0 as a whole – led by KSA and Russia – begun in May and extending at least to the end of June will amount to ~ 9mm b/d, or close to 9% of global production (Chart 2). Chart 3US Shale-Oil Output Cuts... Outside of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts, we expect US shale-oil output to fall sharply – down ~ 2mm b/d this year from its peak in December, 2019 (Chart 3). The shale-oil supply destruction will lead total US production down by 600k b/d y/y in 2020 (Chart 4). US production losses will account for the largest share of non-OPEC production losses globally. Along with losses from Canada, Brazil and Norway in the wake of the COVID-19 demand destruction, we expect global oil production to fall 12mm b/d y/y by the end of June. Chart 4... Lead US Production Sharply Lower Demand Could Come Back Stronger For the year as a whole, we are leaving our expected demand loss at 8mm b/d, with most of that loss occurring in 1H20. That said, demand could revive sooner than expected, if the anecdotal reports of stronger-than-expected recovery in China prove out – the level of demand there is believed to be close to 13mm b/d in May, after falling to ~ 11.25mm b/d in February and March.2 Kayrros, the oil-inventory tracking service, noted its satellite imagery indicates, “Oil demand losses appear far lower than the prevailing view in April. Measured crude oil builds are wholly inconsistent with prevailing views of a collapse in oil demand of nearly Biblical proportions.” Furthermore, “By early May, there were clear signs of robust recovery in Asian crude demand as well as earlier-stage recovery in US end-user product demand. In addition, steep, swift supply cuts helped rebalance the market, leading to surprisingly deep inventory draws. But demand had never plunged as low as widely believed in the first place.”3 Our estimate of oil-demand destruction is less than that of the major data-reporting agencies. If this performance is repeated globally in EM economies – the historical growth engine of commodity demand – markets could tighten faster than we expect (Chart 5). Our estimate of oil-demand destruction is less than that of the major data-reporting agencies. In their May updates, EIA expects 2020 demand to fall 8.1mm b/d y/y in 2020, vs. 5.2mm b/d last month; OPEC sees demand falling 9.1mm b/d y/y, vs. 6.9mm b/d last month; and the IEA has it at 8.6mm b/d y/y, vs. 9.3mm b/d last month. Chart 5EM Demand Could Revive Quickly Chart 6Massive Fiscal and Monetary Stimulus Will Boost Aggregate Demand Globally By next year, we expect global demand will rise 8mm b/d y/y, driven by the massive monetary and fiscal stimulus that will continue to boost aggregate demand higher (Chart 6). In 2H20, we see demand recovering as flowing supplies fall (Chart 7), forcing onshore inventories to draw sharply in 2H20 and into 2021 (Chart 8), as well as floating storage (Chart 9). In addition, This will flatten the forward Brent and WTI curves in 2H20, and backwardate them next year, as storage draws continue (Chart 10). Chart 7Oil Supply Falls, Demand Rises ... Chart 8... Onshore Inventories Draw More Than Expected Chart 9Expect Floating Storage To Empty Rapidly Chart 10Falling Storage Levels Will Push Forward Curves Into Backwardation Political Economy Drives Price Evolution The risk of higher gasoline prices as crude marches higher this summer is a risk President Trump already has shown he will not countenance. Following the massive production cuts being implemented this month and next by OPEC 2.0 and the large involuntary output losses outside the coalition, there is a risk prices could rise rapidly in 2H20. The fairly high likelihood demand surprises to the upside in 2H20 cannot be ignored, which would further fuel a price spike. This is a combustible political mix. The risk of higher gasoline prices as crude marches higher this summer is a risk President Trump already has shown he will not countenance, particularly not as an election looms. With this in mind, we iterated on the production required to keep Brent prices below $50/bbl in 2020 in our modeling, consistent with our view of the political economy considerations US elections impose (Table 1). Any additional volumes needed to keep Brent below $50/bbl can be returned to market fairly quickly out of OPEC 2.0 spare capacity. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) OPEC 2.0’s production cuts have sharply increased the group’s spare capacity to ~ 6.5mm b/d – 5.5mm b/d in OPEC and close to 1mm b/d in Russia and its allies – which means these states will be capable of modulating production quickly and with fairly high precision. The Return Of OPEC 2.0 Production Discipline The budgets of the OPEC 2.0 states have endured massive hits, which can only be repaired by higher oil-export revenues, given their dependence oil sales. After the US elections, OPEC 2.0 production discipline will have to be revived, given the massive fiscal constraints these states are facing. The budgets of the OPEC 2.0 states have endured massive hits, which can only be repaired by higher oil-export revenues, given their dependence oil sales. KSA will want to manage the rate at which prices increase, so that prices rise while global markets are awash in fiscal and monetary stimulus. We believe Russia will acquiesce on this point – i.e., it will not reprise its role as a price dove arguing for lower prices against KSA’s desire for higher prices – given the damage done to its economy from the price collapse in 1H20. That said, taking inventories from historically high levels back down to their 2010-14 average levels – the storage target pursued by OPEC 2.0 prior to the COVID-19-induced price collapse – likely will keep price volatility elevated (Chart 11). An upside demand surprise while production is being aggressively curtailed could sharply raise prices. Indeed, in our modeling of 2021 prices, we again iterated on production to keep Brent prices below $80/bbl, which we believe is the level both KSA and Russia can agree on for the short term. We also believe that the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus sloshing through EM and DM economies will make such prices bearable, provided they are not the result of a supply-side shock. Chart 11Oil Price Volatility Will Remain Elevated The level of uncertainty in the oil markets remains extraordinarily high. Bottom Line: Our price forecasts are premised on a resumption in global growth in 2H20 that lifts crude oil demand, and sharper-than-expected voluntary and involuntary production cuts taking supply significantly lower over the balance of the year and into next year. As the volatility chart above shows, however, the level of uncertainty in the oil markets remains extraordinarily high: A demand surprise to the upside cannot be ignored, but it also could collapse again with a second COVID-19 wave forcing another round of lockdowns. On the supply side, Tropical Storm Arthur launched the hurricane season weeks ahead of schedule. This elevates supply risk in the US Gulf until the end of November, when the season ends. We expect 2020 Brent prices to average $40/bbl and 2021 prices to average $68/bbl. WTI will trade $2-$4/bbl lower. Two-way risk – upside and downside – abounds. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight OPEC's May Monthly Oil Market Report noted Iraq failed to raise crude oil output in April amid the market-share war instigated by Russia’s refusal to back additional production cuts at OPEC 2.0’s March meeting. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE managed to move their production up by 2.2mm b/d, 2.2mm b/d, and 330k, respectively. In our global oil balances, we assume Iraq will increase production along with core-OPEC 2.0 countries to balance oil markets once demand rebounds later this year. However, its declining production last month could signal Iraq’s ability to increase production is limited and that it will struggle to meet its increasing quota in 4Q20 and 2021. Base Metals: Neutral China’s policy-driven economic recovery continues. Last week’s data release provided evidence of a rebound in the manufacturing, infrastructure, and construction sectors (Chart 12). This will continue to support base metals – primarily copper and aluminum. Precious Metals: Neutral Chairman Powell’s comment that there is “no limit” to what the Fed can do with its emergency lending facilities supports our view that US real rates will remain depressed as inflation expectations move up ahead of nominal rates. Gold and silver are up 2% and 14% since last Tuesday. We believe silver slightly below its equilibrium price vs. gold and industrial metals (Chart 13). Silver could continue to temporarily outpace gold as it moves to equilibrium. Ags/Softs: Underweight US corn planting for the 2020/2021 season is approaching the finish line, with 80% of the crop in the ground so far, as reported by the USDA on Monday. Although this figure was up 13 percentage points since last week, it didn’t meet analysts’ expectations of 82% to 84%, which provided support for corn prices. Furthermore, this week’s sharp rebound in oil prices also was positive for corn, which gained ¢2/bu since the beginning of the week. Chart 12Chinese Investment Tailwind for Base Metals Chart 13Silver Could Temporarily Outpace Gold Footnotes 1 Please see US Storage Tightens, Pushing WTI Lower, our forecast published last month on April 16, 2020, which discussed the production cuts agreed by OPEC 2.0 in April. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Oil highest since March as Chinese demand reaches 13 MMbpd published May 18, 2020, by worldoil.com. 3 Please see Reassessing the Oil Demand Impact of COVID-19 published by Kayrros on medium.com May 19, 2020. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades
Last Friday, BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service concluded that Biden/Obama redux is the best shot for Dems to beat Trump. Biden is currently mulling his pick for the vice-presidential candidate. None of the candidates are magical: Senator Amy…
Highlights At 50% Trump’s reelection odds are too high, flagging a risk to equity markets of policy discontinuity. The virus, unemployment, and wages will weigh on him over the year. Trump’s polling is firm because the crisis is still acute. If it remains firm when the dust settles then we will reassess. Trump is competitive in swing states, but not clearly leading. The stock market, as a single variable, is an excellent gauge of reelection odds for ruling parties in US elections going back to 1896. It gives Trump a 16% chance as of today. This is too low, but unemployment and wages also suggest he is an underdog. Michelle Obama and Justin Amash are potential spoilers flying under the radar. The Senate will follow the White House, signaling an understated risk of a total policy reversal and hard left turn in US policy. Massive stimulus motivates our long run risk-on trades: cyber security, infrastructure, Fed-backed corporate bonds, and China reflation plays. Europe and European industrials stand to benefit on a relative basis if Biden wins. Feature Chart 1Recent Poll Shows Trump Leads In Swing States President Donald Trump’s reelection bid is holding up better than we expected so far this year. Trump leads former Vice President Joe Biden in swing states by 52% to 45%, according to a poll taken by CNN from May 7-10 (Chart 1). Our poll of polls below are not as supportive, but this is a strong sign of competitiveness for a sitting president in the midst of a pandemic, recession, social unrest, and controversy over reopening the economy. Naturally several clients have pushed back against our decision to downgrade Trump’s chances of victory from 55% to 35% back in March. We don’t mind the heat – we took the heat for two years while we favored Trump for reelection. Moreover we are not dogmatic. If the facts change, we will change our minds. So far, we are sticking to our view. It is a view that implies risk to corporate earnings and hence supports a tactically bearish or short positioning on the S&P 500. If Trump maintains and builds on his popular support, particularly by August when the Republican and Democratic parties hold their conventions, then we will upgrade his odds, assuming that the economy is improving and the pandemic is abating. At present the market is underrating the challenges facing the president, as we outline in this report. Reopening Poses Downside Risks To Trump Chart 2US Follows The Swedes So far reopening is helping Trump, but it poses a major risk to him down the line this year. The election is five months away – a world away. The new “whistleblower’s complaint” against the Trump administration argues that America faces its “darkest winter in modern history” due to the impending second wave of the virus. However, we rely on the testimony of Anthony Fauci to the Senate this week. Fauci said that states can continue to reopen as long as they adhere to federal guidelines that require 14 days of declining cases in the first phase. June 1 is an acceptable time for most states to open. The trajectory of US deaths per million is deviating from the path of the European Union and moving toward the path charted by Sweden. Swedes have adhered strictly to looser guidelines; Americans have adhered loosely to stricter guidelines. The US death count per million people, a lagging indicator, will rise or at least remain flat in the coming months if states and individuals are not vigilant and compliant (Chart 2). One should assume, however, that governments and individuals will alter their behavior for the sake of self-preservation and in light of new information. Interior American states – those not included in the “COVID confederacy” of western and eastern Democratic states – have seen a tentative drop in deaths (Charts 3A & 3B). While looser restrictions will lead to higher deaths than otherwise, it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be unmanageable for the health system. Chart 3AInterior US Sees Rising COVID Cases … Chart 3B… And Deaths Could Rise From Here From an Electoral College perspective – an absurd way to look at a pandemic, but such are the times – the red states will see an accelerating case count and death toll if they do not actively manage the reopening process (Charts 4A & 4B). This is a political liability. Chart 4ARed States Stable In Case Count … Chart 4B… Yet Deaths Could Tick Up Expectations that Trump is a slam dunk for reelection neglect the obvious fact that interior states shut down before they suffered the full brunt of the pandemic. If new outbreaks spiral out of control, it will have a negative political ramification for those pushing for a quick reopening. That will eventually accrue to the president, with whom the buck stops. A resurgence of infections, whether this summer or this fall, will be met with better preparedness, in terms of non-pharmaceutical intervention (social distancing) and likely pharmaceutical intervention as well (anti-virals, probably not yet a vaccine). But the virus is now underrated as a political risk since President Trump is fully identified with the decision to “liberate” the states yet his polls are firm and online gamblers on sites like PredictIt are giving him a roughly 50% chance of winning reelection. Bottom Line: If outbreaks spiral out of control in swing states then the incumbent president and ruling party will be punished. The evolution of cases and deaths is critical in the near term. Uncertainty over reopening, and understated risks of political change, call for a higher equity risk premium and hence more downside for share prices. Trump’s Approval Gains Are Slight Americans are hitting “peak polarization” this year and the coming years. It is well known that partisanship is affecting voters’ views on objective reality. But notice that all consumers are getting more optimistic about the future, not just Republicans (Chart 5). Chart 5Sentiment Is Polarized But Everyone Sees Improvements On Horizon Uncertainty over reopening and understated risks of political change, call for more downside for share prices. There is a clear bifurcation in voter’s opinions of Trump’s handling of the economy as against the pandemic. Voters approve less and less of his pandemic response; they disapprove less and less of his handling of the economy (Charts 6A & 6B). Chart 6ATrump’s Approval Falling On COVID-19 … Chart 6BYet Supported On Economy Chart 7Voters Wary Of Reopening Too Fast The implication is that if the economy is the single biggest issue in November, then Trump made the right electoral call to reopen fast and focus on presiding over the biggest stimulus in history. Yet a clear majority feels the country is lifting restrictions too quickly. Only a slight majority of Republicans agree with him (Chart 7). Recent Emerson and Marist polls reinforce the point that the economy is the most important issue. Biden is leading Trump on the coronavirus – and notably leading older voters on both issues (Charts 8A & 8B). Chart 8AVoters Still Most Concerned About The Economy Chart 8BYet One Poll Says Biden Gaining Lead On Both Economy And Pandemic Trump’s national approval rating remains underwater, but it has gradually converged with the average of American presidents (Chart 9). A major incident of social unrest – which is possible given active protest movements amid high polarization – would hurt him. The lowest point in his approval rating occurred in August 2017 during the Charlottesville, Virginia protests against taking down a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that turned bloody. Incidents of social unrest will be exploited by both political extremes, but a rise in unrest in general would cause anxiety among middle-of-the-road voters and tend to hurt the ruling party. Chart 9Trump Rising – But Social Unrest A Risk Chart 10Trump Not Yet Clearly On Obama Trajectory Chart 11Trump Gaining Among Hispanics, But Slight Dip Among Elderly Comparing Trump’s approval rating to his immediate predecessors is more realistic because general presidential approval has declined over time due to polarization. On this front, Trump is falling short of President Obama at this stage in 2012. Of course, he could still rally in the lead-up to the campaign, as is typical of sitting presidents (Chart 10). An important caveat is that Trump is making headway in unexpected voting groups. His support is surging among Hispanics, who are disproportionately hurt by economic lockdowns due to the sectoral concentration of their labor, yet less likely to die of COVID-19 (most likely because they are a younger cohort relative to blacks and whites). Moreover this trend began before the coronavirus and coincides with a rise in approval among electorally vital Midwesterners, as well as young people (Chart 11). The implication is that Democrats’ decision to impeach Trump has helped him, just as we argued it would last year, and yet COVID-19 has not reversed his gains. Older people, as mentioned, are a very important exception. They are the critical voting bloc and most susceptible to the virus. They are tentatively becoming less approving of the president. This is according to this Gallup poll, to the CNN poll highlighted at the top of this report, and the aforementioned poll in Chart 8 above. The right-leaning pollster Rasmussen – a proxy for those trying to avoid anti-Trump skews in polling due to any self-censorship or methodological biases – shows that Trump’s approval rating bottomed at a slightly lower level than it did when the Zelensky call appeared last fall, but not as low as during the market plunge and political controversies of late 2018 (Chart 12). This is good news for Trump. Chart 12Trump Reviving From Virus Hit, Shows Rasmussen Polling Chart 13Trump’s Polling Bounce Small Relative To Peers Yet Trump’s polling “bounce,” as the nation rallies around his leadership amid crisis, is small at two percentage points. Other leaders have gotten bigger boosts (Chart 13). More importantly, Trump’s polling bounce is miniscule compared to the average bounce for American presidents during crises that assail the US from the outside (Table 1). Table 1Trump’s Crisis Polling Bounce Compared To Previous Presidential Bounces Bottom Line: Trump is holding up surprisingly well with voters amid the crisis given his past polling. This is an important signal. But it is important to see if it is sustained after the acute phase passes. His polling gains are small relative to US history and contemporary peers. His consistent strong marks on the economy only matter if the economy is the chief issue of the election, but the pandemic creates a major risk that this election could be one of the unusual elections in which a non-economic issue is the most salient. Trump Isn’t Winning In Head-To-Head Polls Earlier we highlighted Trump’s lead in swing states, according to the latest CNN poll. But in our aggregate of polls, Biden is leading in all swing states except Ohio (Chart 14A). Chart 14ABiden Leads Swing State Poll-Of-Polls Except Ohio The lead is within the margin of error in Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona, meaning the candidates are effectively tied. But that reflects negatively on the sitting president, since incumbents have an advantage over challengers, and Biden is widely known to be a deeply flawed challenger. Trump has taken a big hit in head-to-head polls in critical states. Moreover the year-to-date change in these head-to-head polls suggests that Trump has taken a big hit in critical states: Florida, Arizona, and even Ohio, which should be rock solid for him (Chart 14B). Chart 14BTrump Suffered Blow From Virus In Swing State Poll-Of-Polls The consolation for Trump is that Biden, “Sleepy Joe in the basement,” who is fending off mounting accusations of sexual misconduct against Tara Reade, has either lost ground or made negligible gains. Clients often tell us they do not trust the polls. But post-WWII history shows that polls are fairly accurate and more accurate for sitting presidents than their challengers. Incumbents have averaged 55% of the popular vote, versus 49% for challengers, a clear indication of the incumbent advantage (Chart 15A). Chart 15ASitting Presidents Usually Win The Popular Vote Voter intentions in October and November ahead of the election are usually only 0.8% lower than the sitting president’s actual vote share. However, the same polls tend to underrate challengers by 2.2% (Chart 15B). Chart 15BPolling Is Accurate – Yet Underrates Challengers More Than Incumbent Presidents Chart 16Trump’s Favorability Less Negative, Biden’s Turns Negative Favorability polling is of limited relevance, given that the candidates for president in 2016 and 2020 are the least favorable of all politicians. Polarization makes it so that being hated by the other party is an asset. But it is notable that Trump’s net favorability is not half as negative as it was in 2016, and that he is tied with Biden, whereas Biden has fallen a great distance since the last economic crisis, when he had greater favorability than Barack Obama (Chart 16). Bottom Line: The candidates are virtually tied in the swing states and Biden’s slight lead in our poll-of-polls has not benefited from the crisis. Incumbents tend to outperform their polling by one point, but challengers tend to outperform by two. Biden is manifestly a weak challenger but taking all the evidence together he has a slight lead at present in the swing states. Stock Market And Recession Are Worrisome For Trump Table 2Trump’s Odds 50% At Most Based On Historic Recession/Election Probabilities US elections are a referendum on the incumbent party. Recessions tend to destroy sitting presidents. This is true, but there are important exceptions. A close look at the odds of sitting presidents, as well as sitting parties, and the timing of when the economy resumes expansion, suggests that Trump’s odds of winning are at best 50/50 (Table 2). Our own quantitative election model shows the same thing, and has hovered at 51% all along, although it will flip key states against him once state-level data are updated for the collapse in the economy. Fernando Crupi, of BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy, shows what a simple and straightforward look at the S&P 500 implies about Trump’s odds. Together we looked at two variables in elections since 1896: the market performance year to date on October 31 of the election year, and the result of the election for the incumbent party, i.e. victory if the incumbent party is reelected or loss if the new president hails from the opposing party. To estimate the probability of victory we use a logistic model, a widely used statistical tool designed to predict probabilities which can only range between zero and one, never hitting them.1 It is virtually impossible for an election outcome to be certain. The results are as follows: The year-to-date performance of the S&P 500 is a statistically significant variable (at the 5% level) in determining the fate of an incumbent party and has a positive correlation with it. Out of 31 elections, the model correctly predicted the outcome of 77% of the elections in-sample. While this is far from perfect it is remarkable given that we are using the market performance as the only explanatory variable. The effect of an additional percentage point of stock market performance is not linear on the incumbent party’s re-election odds, so two numbers are worthwhile expressing. At the mean S&P 500 YTD performance of the 31 elections, an additional percentage point increase in the market would increase the incumbent party’s odds of winning by 2.8 percentage points, and a decrease would decrease it by the same. By comparison, for all possible values of market performance, the average effect of an additional percentage point increase (or decrease) of the market would increase (or decrease) the probability of an incumbent party re-election by 2.1 percentage points. Chart 17 helps to visualize the model – for any percentage of market performance YTD as of October 31, it shows Trump’s odds of reelection this fall. With the S&P down by 13% this year, Trump’s odds would be 16%. A 10ppt recuperation in the S&P 500 from here would increase his chances to 40% and a 15ppt recuperation would bring him to 55%. Chart 17The Stock Market Says Trump’s Reelection Odds Are 16% Obviously the stock market is likely to rally or sell off for various reasons, for instance, if it thinks that the economy will get worse and the incumbent will lose. A change of government introduces policy uncertainty. Our own electoral model, explained in previous reports, is more robust than this back-of-the-envelope experiment and produces a more favorable outcome for Trump. So while the S&P may be low-balling Trump at 16%, we have no basis either in history or in formal modeling to give him more than a 50% chance as things stand today. And subjectively we think 50% is too high. Presidential approval follows the unemployment rate in the final innings of the campaign. Trump is doomed by this measure. Lastly, to reiterate and update key points we have made in the past: Presidential approval tends to follow the unemployment rate in the final innings of the campaign. Trump is obviously doomed by this measure, as it is the net change over time that matters most (Charts 18A & 18B). Chart 18AUnemployment Rate A Huge Chart 18B… And Tends To Predict Voter turnout is one of the hardest variables to predict, but it follows pretty closely with the change in unemployment over the preceding four years in the swing states. High turnout amid a deep recession is negative for the incumbent president (Chart 19). Chart 19Surge In Unemployment Positive For Turnout, Yet Hurts Incumbent Our subjective probability of reelection, at 35% as of March 24, holds up pretty well in this light. We will adjust this as new evidence comes to light. Bottom Line: To claim that Trump’s odds of reelection are substantially higher than 50% is to argue that “this time is different.” The market should keep falling from its April 29 peak around 2950 not only because of uncertainty about the pandemic and economy but also because of the risk that Trump’s troubles lead to market-negative outcomes. Michelle And Justin As Spoilers With multiple overlapping crises and high polarization, we have highlighted the high potential for extreme events, black swans, and spoilers. These do not include any move of the election date – that would make Trump look weak and would require House Democrats to agree to change a key 1845 statute.2 But they include almost everything else: violent incidents, disputes over voting methods amid the virus, vote recounts, judicial interventions, Electoral College irregularities, congressional intercession, refusals to concede, you name it. We would not be surprised if the Supreme Court took an opportunity currently before it to rule in favor of punishments against “faithless electors” or even to prohibit electors from voting contrary to the popular will in general. On a much less important note, we would also not be surprised if the high court enables President Trump’s personal accounts and tax records to be subpoenaed. Another possible spoiler: Michelle Obama. Chart 20Michelle Obama Objective Best Pick For Vice President Biden is currently mulling his pick for the vice presidential candidate. None of the candidates are magical: Senator Amy Klobuchar makes the most sense of the conventional options as she could improve his standing among women, Midwesterners, white voters, and suburbanites. She hails from Minnesota, he from Pennsylvania, creating a potential pincer movement in the Electoral College. Klobuchar’s favorability is stronger than that of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, neither of whom can help bring a swing state (Chart 20).3 Yet Warren is well known and could help mend the gap with the progressive wing of the party. Picking her highlights the understated risk to the market of a progressive turn in Biden’s platform. Stacey Abrams could help bring over the black vote but she is sorely lacking in credentials and is reminiscent of the GOP’s desperate and failed bid to reconnect with its base by nominating Sarah Palin in 2008. The obvious choice is Michelle Obama. She has the highest favorability by far, including when her detractors are netted out. She solidifies Biden’s connection with Barack Obama, helps energize progressives, women, and minorities who are needed to turn out. And her power base is in the Midwest. One little problem … Michelle has repeatedly said she does not wish to run. Others have confirmed she has no interest. And a Machiavellian political adviser could advise her to wait until later when there is no incumbent president and then run directly for the top job, free of Biden’s baggage. We held the latter view, until the corona crisis. Trump was heavily favored prior to recession. Now the tables have turned. And a vice presidential role would improve her chances of being the first woman president later. The fact that she apparently does not want to run is obviously a huge problem. But her party needs her and this fact may become increasingly evident as Biden’s weaknesses are exposed. Vice presidential picks seldom make a difference in the campaign. At best they can help bring a swing state. But this election is different. Biden would turn 78 immediately after being elected; he is more likely than the average president to depend upon his VP while ruling, and to pass the baton to the VP early. COVID-19 underscores this risk. In other words, this year is the rare case where the Veep pick is important enough to matter and a charismatic candidate exists who could materially improve the odds of the opposition party’s victory. Would Michelle really help? An argument could be made that the Obama legacy is tarnished and that Trump would relish the chance to run against the Obama brand. However, our reasoning is based on Electoral College scenarios drawn from the best demographic data available, which suggest that the strongest challenge the Democrats can mount in 2020 is to reproduce the 2012 Obama/Biden ticket (Chart 21). Chart 21Electoral College Scenarios Say Biden/Obama 2012 Redux Best Shot For Dems To Beat Trump Chart 22Amash Is Small, But Significant Another important potential spoiler is Justin Amash. Amash is a former Republican who defected from the party due to his opposition to Trump and has since become the nation’s first congressman of the Libertarian Party. Amash could be important because he hails from Michigan, a key swing state, and is a splinter from the right-wing rather than the left-wing, thus potentially threatening President Trump’s thin margins in the battleground states. Currently Amash is winning 3%-5% of the popular vote, according to polls (Chart 22). Historically an extremely elevated third party vote is a threat to the incumbent president and ruling party, regardless of ideological affiliation. This is because it bespeaks general popular discontent, which in turn reflects negatively on the status quo and ruling party. However, so far Amash is not popular enough to hit the extremely elevated threshold. Looking at third party candidacies that have drawn more than 2% of the vote over history, the incumbent party wins 50% of the time. So the historical results are indecisive, but they do show potential for Amash to play the spoiler (Table 3). Table 3How Do Sitting US Presidents And Their Parties Fare When Voters Turn To Third Parties? Furthermore a larger group of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters are determined not to vote for Biden than Republican and Republican-leaning voters are determined not to vote for Trump (Chart 23). The Republican Party rank and file support Trump enthusiastically, more so than Democrats support Biden, especially in the swing states (Chart 24). This suggests that Amash will fail to get traction among Republicans. Chart 23Left-Leaners Reject Biden More Than Right-Leaners Reject Trump Chart 24GOP More Zealous For Trump Than Dems For Biden We would not rule him out, however. The context of pandemic, deep recession, and extreme polarization is fertile for a third party candidate, as was the case in 2016. If support for Trump wanes due to the mounting death toll and unemployment rate, the weakness of Biden might point to defections from Trump’s camp to Amash. Again, this could be particularly relevant in swing states. Amash may not garner more votes than Gary Johnson, his Libertarian predecessor in 2016, since that year saw an “open election” favorable to third parties, whereas this year there is an incumbent running. But Amash has flown entirely under the radar. He is therefore underrated by markets. And his impact, in the final analysis, will likely prove more negative for the ruling party than Biden, who is very far from a libertarian. Bottom Line: Peak polarization and a historic national crisis will produce black swans. But some spoilers are identifiable. Biden picking Michelle Obama, and a small but significant margin of Republicans defecting to Amash in swing states, are non-negligible risks to Trump’s reelection odds. What About The Senate? Democrats are likely to retain the House of Representatives, unless the positive trends for Trump that we have highlighted start to snowball into massive momentum. Hence the Senate will be decisive to the legislative success of the next administration. It is especially relevant if a Democrat wins, since the implication would be single party control of both legislative and executive branches. By contrast, Trump’s reelection would imply a continuation of today’s balance of power. Online gamblers have finally come around to our long-held view that the Senate will go the way of the White House: currently PredictIt gives the Democrats a 52% chance, up substantially from last year. Republican Senate leaders have openly aired their fears as the election cycle picks up. The risk to Republican control is not merely because the crisis has erased the uptick in Republican Party affiliation (Chart 25), nor is it due to the break in Republican momentum in generic voter party support (Chart 26), though these developments are unwelcome to Republicans. Chart 25Republican Affiliation Of Voters Rolls Over Chart 26Democrats Tick Up Slightly In Generic Congressional Ballot Rather, politics have increasingly become nationalized and more Republican senators are at risk than Democrats due to the windfall Republican senate victory in 2014. Current polling reinforces that the Senate stands on a knife’s edge, as all races are virtually tied, except Colorado, which is a likely shoo-in for Democrats. Arizona is almost as good for them (Chart 27). Democrats need to take four seats plus the White House to win the chamber. Chart 27Close Races In Senate Will Follow The White House Bottom Line: The Senate will go the way of the White House, which means the market is not only underrating a Biden victory but also underrating the probability that he is unconstrained. With peak polarization, and full Democratic control, Biden would not prove a center-left president in office. He would end up governing to the left of the Obama administration. Investment Takeaways Why does the election matter? If Trump loses, the United States will most likely see another total reversal of national policy, as in 2016 and 2008. Yet this time the macroeconomic, political, and demographic backdrop will make it harder for Republicans to stage as effective of resistance as in 2010-16. This is positive for aggregate demand, due to fiscal policy, but negative for corporate earnings. Biden will be pushed to the left by the progressive wing of his party and will face relatively few legislative or judicial constraints. The Democrats will also surprise the market with a tough stance toward China to steal back the mantle of fighting for American workers. Big business will face higher taxes, sweeping re-regulation, and trade restrictions, all at the same time. The S&P 500 has fallen 4% since we recommended investors step back from the rally. We see more downside due to sluggish recoveries, viral outbreaks, hiccups in providing stimulus, and political and geopolitical risks. The S&P’s next support levels are at 2670 and 2250. Chart 28China Faces Protectionism Either Way, But Europe Only With Trump In the short term, Trump’s odds are overrated. We will upgrade him if the stock market, economy, and political indicators improve substantially from what we are seeing today by August when the two parties hold their conventions. What about our view that Trump will crack down on China? A crackdown will cause the S&P to sell. Yet a dramatic selloff that destroys his reelection hopes, or a rally based on massive stimulus, both encourage him to escalate the crisis. Politically, confronting China is positive for him and he cannot let Biden outmaneuver him on workers, trade, and China. This entire dynamic leaves us inclined to be risk-averse. For investors with a long time horizon we recommend selective risk-on investments such as cyber-security, infrastructure, China reflation plays, and investment grade corporate bonds, the latter now backed by the Federal Reserve. A parting thought on industrials. Gargantuan stimulus is positive for cyclical stocks over the long run. But Trump’s reelection raises the prospect of trade war not only with China but also with Europe. It also increases the substantial risk of an expanding conflict with Iran that sows unrest in the Middle East over the next five years. Whereas Biden would seek a united front with Europe against China and would reduce Middle Eastern risks to Europe. Hence over the long run European industrials can benefit disproportionately from a Biden win, on a policy-oriented basis, compared to a Trump win (Chart 28). Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Fernando Crupi Research Associate fernandoc@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Compared to a simple regression line, the effect of the explanatory variable on the predicted probabilities varies along the curve. An increase (or decrease) in our explanatory variable by one unit has a smaller and smaller effect on the probability of victory as we approach our upper and lower probability bounds of 0 and 1. Obviously this model cannot fully explain the outcome of an election nor establish causality, but it gives us a good indication of how important the market performance is for an incumbent party to be re-elected. 2 Please see Acts of the Twenty-Eight Congress of the United States, Statute II, Library of Congress. www.loc.gov. 3 The only superior scenario mathematically, in which Biden aims solely at winning back the Democrats’ old blue collar white voter base, is much less likely to succeed given that these voters have drifted to the GOP in recent decades and have been galvanized by Trump.
Highlights Global stimulus efforts are sufficient thus far, but more will need to be done, especially by Europe and emerging markets. Hiccups will not be well-received by financial markets. The net public wealth of countries helps put debt constraints into perspective in a world of zero and negative interest rates. Insufficient fiscal policy is a bigger risk for Europe in the near term than any Germany-mandated withdrawal of ECB quantitative easing. European states remain locked in a geopolitical predicament that prevents them from abandoning each other despite serious differences over fiscal policy, which will persist. We are tactically long defensive plays and safe havens. Stay long JPY-EUR. Feature This week we focus on two questions: Will global stimulus be enough to fill the gap in demand? And will Germany impose a hard limit on European stimulus efforts? Our answers are yes to the first and no to the second. It is impossible for governments to replace private activity indefinitely, but the resumption of private activity is inevitable one way or another. Governments are continuing to provide massive fiscal and monetary support. The near term is cloudy, however, due to the mismatch between uncertain economic reopening and increasing impediments to new stimulus. Weak spots in the global fiscal stimulus efforts arise in Europe and emerging markets excluding China. Europe, at least, is a temporary catch – as Germany has no choice but to help the rest of the EU prop up aggregate demand. But fiscal policy is a greater near-term risk to peripheral European assets than any cessation of monetary support from the ECB. Will Global Stimulus Be Enough? Yes, Eventually Chart 1 shows the latest update of our global fiscal stimulus chart comparing the size of today’s stimulus to the 2008-10 period. Countries that make up 92% of global GDP are providing about 8% of global GDP in fiscal stimulus. Full calculations can be found in the Appendix. Chart 1US Still Leads In Fiscal Stimulus The chief difference between our calculation and that of others is that we include government loans while excluding government loan guarantees. If a government gives a loan to a business or household, funds are transferred to the receiver’s deposits and can be spent to make necessary purchases or pay fixed costs. A loan guarantee, by contrast, is helpful but does not involve a transfer of funds. Our colleague Jonathan LaBerge, has recently written a Special Report analyzing the size of global fiscal stimulus. He provides an alternative calculation in Chart 2, which focuses on “above the line” measures, i.e. only measures affecting government revenues and expenditures. Government loans, guarantees, and other “below the line” measures are left aside in this conservative definition of stimulus. Chart 2Japan Leads In IMF “Above The Line” Account Of Stimulus Chart 3 shows the discrepancies between Jonathan’s version and our own – they are not very large. The major differences are Japan, China, Germany, Italy, and South Africa. Of these only Germany, Japan, and China are significant.1 Chart 3Geopolitical Strategy Estimates Accord Less Stimulus To Japan, More To Germany And China, Than IMF Does In Japan’s case, we include the stimulus measures that Japan passed at the end of 2019 because even though they were not passed in response to the pandemic, they will take affect at the same time as those that were. We do not include private sector complements to government action, which Japan includes in its account, since private responses are hard to predict and we do not include them for other countries. In China’s case, official estimates underrate the easing of credit policy. Credit is a quasi-fiscal function in China since the Communist Party controls the banks. With a large credit expansion the overall stimulus impact will be larger than expected, as long as borrowers still want to borrow. Data thus far this year suggests that they do, if only to cover expenses and debt payments. Our assessment that China’s stimulus will reach about 10% of GDP follows BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy. The UK and especially Italy, Spain, and France are falling short in their stimulus efforts … Is global stimulus “enough” to plug the gap in demand? Chart 4 shows our colleague Jonathan’s narrower definition of stimulus compared with estimates of the drop in demand from social lockdowns and spillover effects. It assumes a fiscal multiplier of 1.1. The result suggests that the US, China, and Australia are clearly doing enough; Germany, Japan, and Canada are arguably doing enough; other countries including Italy, France, and Spain will likely have to do more. Chart 4Which Countries Have Plugged The Gap In Demand So Far? The latest news confirms this assessment. The US Congress is negotiating another phase of stimulus that will provide a second round of direct payments to households, a third infusion of small business loans, and a large bailout of state and local governments. The current total is $2 trillion, and so far this year these totals are only revised upward. This tendency stems from the political setup: Trump needs to stimulate for the election, GOP senators’ fates ultimately hinge on Trump, while the House Democrats cannot withhold stimulus merely to undermine the Republicans. Similarly, there can be little doubt that China and Japan will provide more stimulus to maintain full employment – their different political systems have always demanded it. We are more concerned about Europe. The UK and especially Italy, Spain, and France are falling short in their stimulus efforts, with the last three ranging from 2%-4% of GDP, according to Chart 4 above. They will add more stimulus, but might they still fall short of what is needed? Assuming that the ECB will provide adequate liquidity, and that low bond yields for a long time will enable debts to be serviced, these countries can service their debts for some time. But what then is the constraint? From a long-term point of view, the UK and peripheral European nations have relatively fewer national assets to weigh against their well-known liabilities. They are closer to their constraints in issuing debt, even if those constraints are nearly impossible to establish and years away from being hit. This is apparent from the IMF’s data series on net public wealth, i.e. total public sector assets and liabilities (Chart 5A). These data, from 2016, are a bit stale, but they are still useful because they take account of assets like natural resources, real estate, state-owned companies, and pension plans that retain value over the long run. It does no good to refer to the large debt loads of countries without considering the vast holdings that they command. By the same token, at some point the debt loads look formidable even relative to these huge realms. Chart 5ANet Public Wealth: A Fuller Picture Of The Debt Story These data tend to underrate the sustainability of developed markets, which are highly indebted but have reserve currencies, safe haven status, and large, liquid credit markets. They overrate the sustainability of emerging markets, with large resource wealth and low-debt, but vulnerable currencies and credit markets. This is not only true for emerging markets with the most negative net worth, like Brazil, or with unsustainable fiscal policies, like Turkey and South Africa. China would look a lot worse in net public wealth, if this could be calculated, than it does on the general government ledger (Chart 5B), due to the liabilities of its state-owned enterprises and local governments. It would look more like the US or Japan in net public wealth – yet without a reserve currency. Chart 5BNet Government Debt: Flatters EM, Not DM Nevertheless the European states have a problem that the other developed markets do not have: the Euro Area’s “constitutional” order is still unsettled. Questions are continually arising about whether countries’ liabilities are backstopped by a single currency authority and the entire assets of the Euro Area. These questions will tend to be settled in favor of European integration. But treaty battles in the context of upcoming elections – in the Netherlands, Germany, France, and likely Italy and Spain – will provide persistent volatility. Bottom Line: Fiscal stimulus passed thus far is only “sufficient” in a few economies; it is insufficient in southern Europe and emerging markets. Uncertainty about the pandemic, and the pace of economic reopening and normalization, combined with any hiccups in providing adequate stimulus will create near-term volatility. Will Germany Halt Quantitative Easing? No, Not Ultimately The questions about Europe highlighted above have come to the fore with the reemergence of the “German question,” which in today’s context means Germany’s and northern Europe’s willingness to conduct fiscal policy to help rebalance the Euro Area and monetary policy to ease conditions for heavily indebted, low productivity southern Europe. We have little doubt that Germany will provide more than its current 10.3% of GDP fiscal stimulus given that it has explicitly stated that state lender KfW has no limit on the amount of loans it can provide to small businesses. This accounts for the difference between our fiscal stimulus estimate and the IMF’s, but the fullest count, including “below the line” measures, would amount to nearly 35% of GDP. A sea change in the German attitude toward fiscal policy has occurred, which we have tracked in reports over the years. This shift gives permission for other European states to loosen their belts as well. We also have little doubt that German leaders will ultimately accept the ECB’s need to take desperate measures to backstop the European financial system: The “dirty little secret” of the Euro Area is that debt is already mutualized through the Target 2 banking imbalance, worth 1.5 trillion euros (Chart 6). As our Chief European Investment Strategist Dhaval Joshi has argued, Germany, as the largest shareholder in the ECB, holds a large quantity of Italian bonds, and Italians have deposited the proceeds of these bond purchases in German banks. All of this is denominated in euros. If Italy redenominates into lira, it can make bond payments in lira and the ECB and Germany will suffer capital losses. Germany would then face Italians withdrawing their deposits from German banks that would still be denominated in euros (or the deutschmark). The cause of this predicament is the ECB’s quantitative easing program (Chart 7). Chart 6Europe’s Gordian Knot Thus Chancellor Angela Merkel’s shift in tone to become more supportive of joint debt issuance belies the fact that European debt is already mutualized through the Gordian knot of Target2 imbalances. This is a politically unpalatable reality for Germans, but they generally accept it because it is in Germany’s national interest to maintain the monetary union and broader European integration. Chart 7Quantitative Easing Puts Germans On Hook For Italy However, the market may need reassurances about “the German question” from time to time, as EU institutional evolution is ongoing. Financial markets did not sell off on the German court’s ruling on May 5, which ostensibly gave the Bundesbank three months before withdrawing from the ECB’s quantitative easing program. Since the sovereign debt crisis, investors have come to recognize that there is more undergirding European integration than mere German preference. Namely, geopolitics – which we have outlined many times, originally in a 2011 Special Report. European nations cannot compete globally without banding together, and Germany is not powerful enough to go it alone. Still, there will be more consequences from this week’s ruling. At issue is the budgetary sovereignty of the European member states as well as Article 123 of the Treaty of Europe, which holds that neither the ECB nor the national central banks of member states can directly purchase public debts. The latter is a prohibition on the monetary financing of deficits. It became controversial in the wake of Mario Draghi’s 2012 declaration that the ECB would do “whatever it takes” to preserve the euro and the ECB’s 2015 Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) quantitative easing program, which the European Court of Justice deemed legal on December 11, 2018. The controversy is now implicitly shifting to the new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program. The other principle concerned is that of “proportionality,” which requires that EU entities not take actions beyond what is necessary to achieve treaty objectives. If the ECB acted without regard to the limits of its mandate, the fiscal supremacy of the states, and the broader economic and fiscal consequences of QE, then its actions would violate the principle of proportionality and would require adjustment by EU authorities or non-participation from member state authorities. The German court did not attempt to overrule or invalidate the European court’s decision in favor of QE, or QE as a whole. Rather, it held that this ruling was not “comprehensible,” hence requiring an independent German ruling, and that the larger question of whether QE violates the prohibition against debt monetization is “not ascertainable.” The reason is that the ECB did not explain its actions adequately and the European Court of Justice did not demand an explanation. Presumably once this is done more decisive determinations can be made. Essentially the German court is demanding “documentation” by the ECB Governing Council that it weighed its monetary decisions against larger economic and fiscal consequences. So will the Bundesbank withdraw from the ECB’s QE operations in three months? Highly unlikely! The ECB, whether directly or indirectly, will provide an assessment of the proportionality of its actions to the Bundesbank and the German court will probably conclude, with limitations, that the ECB’s actions were largely within its mandate. If not, however, markets will plunge. Then the Bundestag or the Bundesbank will have to intervene to ensure that Germany does not in fact withdraw support from the ECB. European nations cannot compete globally without banding together, and Germany is not powerful enough to go it alone. How can we be sure? German opinion. Chancellor Merkel and her ruling Christian Democrats have not suffered this year so far from launching a wartime fiscal expansion and backing the ECB and EU institutions in their emergency actions. On the contrary, they have received one of the biggest bounces in popular opinion polls of any western leaders over the course of the global pandemic. While the bounce will deflate once the acute crisis subsides, this polling signals more than the average rally around the flag (Chart 8). Merkel’s approval rating started to rise when her party embraced more expansive fiscal policy in late 2019 in reaction to malaise revealed in the 2017 election. Germany’s handling of today’s crisis, both the pandemic and the expansive fiscal policy, has put the ruling party in the lead for the 2021 elections (Chart 9). Chart 8Germans See Popular Opinion ‘Bounce’ Amid COVID Chart 9Merkel's CDU Revives Amid Global Crisis Chart 10Germans Support Euro, But Lean On ECB Moreover Germans are enthusiastically in support of the euro and the EU relative to their peers – which makes sense because Germany has been the greatest beneficiary of European integration (Chart 10). The ECB, by contrast, does not have strong support – and is losing altitude. But a crisis provoked by the court and centered on the ECB would quickly become a crisis about the euro and European project as a whole. Opinion has broken in this direction despite Merkel’s and Germany’s many compromises over the years. Remember that Merkel’s capitulation to the Mediterranean states on the European Council in June 2011, which paved the way for Draghi’s famous dictum, was initially seen as a failure by her to defend German interests. Merkel and her party have also recovered from the hit they took when she insisted that Germany take in a huge influx of Syrian refugees in 2015. German popular opinion is relevant when discussing the judicial system and rule of law. No court can ignore popular opinion entirely, no matter how independent and austere, because every court ultimately needs public opinion to maintain its credibility. The European Court’s decision is final, as long as Germany remains committed to the EU. Yet German sovereignty still gives German institutions a say. If the German court persists in attempting to block Bundesbank participation in QE, the result will be a bond market riot that pushes up peripheral debt funding costs. This would eventually risk forcing peripheral states out of the Euro Area, which is against German interests. It is very unlikely things will go so far. Rather, the court will back down after receiving due attention and having its legitimate concerns addressed. The imperatives of European integration are as powerful today as they were in 2011. True, other court challenges will open up against the ECB, particularly the PEPP. But bear in mind that it will be even easier to show that ECB actions are proportional – that broader economic consequences have been weighed – in the case of the pandemic relief emergency than with respect to PSPP prior to COVID. Today it is households and small businesses that need protection from an act of God, not banks and bureaucracies that need protection from the consequences of their excesses. As for the size and duration of QE, the court will try to force some limitations to be acknowledged given the risk to fiscal sovereignty. In this sense, the ECB faces a new constraint, albeit one that we doubt will prove relevant in the near term. Ultimately, the consequence of imposing some limits on central bank policy is to restore authority to member state budgets and European fiscal coordination. In the short term, emergency provision can be provided via the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), whose lending conditions can be relaxed, and by the ECB’s Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT), which can buy bonds amid a market riot. But beyond the immediate crisis the clash over fiscal policy will persist because at some point countries will have to climb down from their extraordinary stimulus and the attempt to restore limits will be contentious. Germany has already made a huge shift in a more fiscally accommodative direction. Italy, Spain, and France are currently not providing enough, but they will add more. Future governments might demand more than even today’s more dovish Germany is willing to accept. Down the road, if these states do not provide more stimulus, then their recoveries will be weaker and political malaise will get worse. An anti-establishment outcome is already likely in Italy in the coming year or two, due to the ability of the League to capitalize on post-COVID voter anger. The big question after that is France in 2022. Macron’s approval rating is holding up, we expect him to win, but his bounce amid the pandemic is not remarkable. From our point of view the peripheral states have a license to spend, so spend they will. But then fiscal conflicts will revive later. Bottom Line: The German constitutional court is not going to try to force the Bundesbank to withdraw from QE, but it is attempting to lay a foundation for the imposition of at least some limits on this policy. The risk to European assets in the short run is not on the monetary side but the fiscal side. Over the long run, the “German question” will never be settled. But the imperatives of European integration are as powerful today as they were in 2011. Each new crisis exposes the weakness of the peripheral states, their need for European institutions. It also exposes Germany’s need to accommodate them when they form a united front. Investment Takeaways Financial markets have no clarity on economic reopening in the face of the virus or how governments will respond to resurgent outbreaks or a second wave in the fall. Taking into consideration the initial shock of the lockdowns plus spillover effects, the cumulative impact to annual GDP rises to 6%-8% by the end of this year for major economies. If another lockdown occurs, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region. This bare risk suggests that global equities face a relapse in the near term. Eventually economic reopening will proceed, as the working age population will demand it. But the path between here and there is rocky and any hiccups in providing stimulus will create even more volatility. Globally, we continue to argue that political and geopolitical risks are rising across the board as the pandemic and recession evolve into a struggle among nations to maintain security amid vulnerabilities and distract from their problems at home. Rumors that China is about to declare an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea are unverified but we have long expected this to occur and tensions and at least some saber-rattling would ensue. We also expect the US to surprise the market with punitive tech and trade measures against China in the near term and to upgrade relations with Taiwan. We remain long JPY-EUR on a tactical 0-3 month horizon. We are converting our tactical long S&P consumer staples, which is up 6%, to a relative trade against the broad market. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix Table 1The Global Fiscal Stimulus Response To COVID-19 Footnotes 1 In the case of Italy, we assume that parliament will pass the latest proposed increase in stimulus from 1.4% to 3.1% of GDP. In the case of South Africa, we expect the IMF to include these measures soon. Germany is discussed below.
Highlights Our baseline view foresees a U-shaped recovery, as economies slowly relax lockdown measures. There are significant risks to this forecast, however. On the upside, a vaccine or effective treatment could hasten the reopening of economies and recovery in spending. On the downside, containment measures could end up being eased too quickly, leading to a surge in new cases. A persistent spell of high unemployment could also permanently damage economies, especially if fiscal and monetary stimulus is withdrawn too quickly. In addition, geopolitical risks loom large, with the US election likely to be fought on who sounds tougher on China. Earnings estimates have yet to fall as much as we think they will, making global equities vulnerable to a near-term correction. Nevertheless, the spread between earnings yields and bond yields is wide enough to justify a modest overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon. Is It Safe To Come Down? We published a report two weeks ago entitled Still Stuck In The Tree where we likened the current situation to one where an angry bear has chased a hiker up a tree.1 Having reached a high enough branch to escape immediate danger, the hiker breathes a sigh of relief. As time goes by, however, the hiker starts to get nervous. Rather than disappearing back into the forest, the bear remains at the base of the tree licking its chops. Meanwhile, the hiker is cold, hungry, and late for work. Like the hiker, the investment community breathed a collective sigh of relief when the number of cases in Italy and Spain, the first two major European economies to be hit by the coronavirus, began to trend lower. In New York City, which quickly emerged as the epicentre of the crisis in the United States, more COVID patients have been discharged from hospitals than admitted for the past three weeks (Chart 1). Chart 1Discharges From New York Hospitals Have Exceeded Admissions For The Past Three Weeks Deepest Recession Since The 1930s Yet, this progress has come at a very heavy economic cost. The IMF expects the global economy to shrink by 3% this year (Chart 2). In 2009, global GDP barely contracted. Chart 2Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year The sudden stop in economic activity has led to a surge in unemployment. According to the Bloomberg consensus estimate, the US unemployment rate rose to 16% in April. The true unemployment rate is probably higher since to be considered unemployed one has to be looking for work, which is difficult if not impossible in the presence of widespread lockdowns. Regardless, even the official unemployment rate is the worst since the Great Depression (Chart 3). Chart 3Unemployment Rate Seen Jumping To Levels Not Reached Since The Great Depression Unshackling The Economy A key difference from the 1930s is that today’s recession has been self-induced. Policymakers want workers to stay home as much as possible. The hope is that once businesses reopen, most of these workers will return to their jobs. How long will that take? Our baseline scenario envisions a slow but steady reopening of the global economy starting later this month, which should engender a U-shaped economic recovery. Since mid-March, much of the world has been trying to compensate for lost time by taking measures that would not have been necessary if policymakers had acted sooner. As Box 1 explains, some loosening of lockdown measures could be achieved without triggering a second wave of cases once the infection rate has been brought down to a sufficiently low level. To the extent that economic activity tends to move in tandem with the number of interactions that people have, a relaxation of social distancing measures should produce a modest rebound in growth. New technologies and a better understanding of how the virus is transmitted should also allow some of the more economically burdensome measures to be lifted. As we have discussed before, mass testing can go a long way towards reducing the spread of the disease (Chart 4).2 Right now, high-quality tests are in short supply, but that should change over the coming months. Chart 4Mass Testing Will Help Increased mask production should also help. Early in the pandemic, officials in western nations promulgated the view that masks do not work. At best, this was a noble lie designed to ensure that anxious consumers did not deprive frontline workers of necessary safety equipment. At worst, it needlessly led many people astray. As East Asia’s experience shows, mask wearing saves lives. A recent paper estimated that the virus could be vanquished if 80% of people wore masks that were at least 60% effective, a very low bar that even cloth masks would pass (Chart 5).3 Chart 5Masks On! Recent research has also cast doubt on the merits of closing schools. The China/WHO joint commission could not find a single instance during contact tracing where a child transmitted the virus to an adult. A study by the UK Royal College of Paediatrics provides further support to the claim that children are unlikely to be important vectors of transmission. The evidence includes a case study of a nine year-old boy who contracted the virus in the French Alps but fortunately failed to transmit it to any of the more than 170 people he had contact with in three separate schools.4 Along the same lines, there is evidence that the odds of adults catching the virus indoors is at least one order of magnitude higher than outdoors.5 This calls into question the strategy of states such as California of clearing out prisons of dangerous felons in order to make room for beachgoers.6 Upside Risks To The U: Medical Breakthroughs While a U-shaped economic recovery remains our base case, we see both significant upside and downside risks to this outcome. The best hope for an upside surprise is that a vaccine or effective treatment becomes available soon. There are already eight human vaccine trials underway, with another 100 in the planning stages. In the race to develop a vaccine, Oxford is arguably in the lead. Scientists at the university’s Jenner Institute have developed a genetically modified virus that is harmless to people, but which still prompts the immune system to produce antibodies that may be able to fight off COVID. The vaccine has already worked well on rhesus monkeys. If it proves effective on humans, researchers hope to have several million doses available by September. On the treatment side, Gilead’s remdesivir gained FDA approval for emergency use after early results showed that it helps hasten the recovery of coronavirus patients. Hydroxychloroquine, which President Trump has touted on numerous occasions, is the subject of dozens of clinical trials internationally. While evidence that hydroxychloroquine can treat the virus post-infection is thin, there is some data to suggest that it can work well as a prophylactic.7 Research is also being conducted on nearly 200 other treatments, including an improbable contender: famotidine, the compound found in the heartburn remedy Pepcid.8 Downside Risk: Too Open, Too Soon Chart 6The Lesson From The Spanish Flu: The Second Wave Could Be Worse Than The First As noted above, once the number of new cases drops to sufficiently low levels, some relaxation of containment measures can be achieved without reigniting the pandemic. That said, there is a clear danger that measures will end up being relaxed too aggressively and too soon. This is precisely what happened during the Spanish Flu (Chart 6). It has become customary to talk about the risk of a second wave of infections; however, the reality is that we have not even concluded the first wave. While the number of cases in New York has been falling, it has been rising in many other US states. As a result, the total number of new coronavirus cases nationwide has remained steady for the past five weeks (Chart 7). It is the same story globally: Falling caseloads in western Europe and East Asia have been offset by rising cases in countries such as Russia, India, and Brazil (Chart 8). Chart 7The Spread Of COVID-19 Has Not Been Contained Everywhere (I) Chart 8The Spread Of Covid-19 Has Not Been Contained Everywhere (II) Chart 9Widespread Social Distancing Has Dampened The Spread Of All Flus And Colds At the heart of the problem is that COVID-19 remains a highly contagious disease. Most studies assign a Reproduction Number, R, of 3-to-4 to the virus. As a point of comparison, the Spanish flu is estimated to have had an R of 1.8. An R of 3.5 would require about 70% of the population to acquire herd immunity to keep the virus at bay.9 As discussed in Box 2, the “true” level of herd immunity may be substantially greater than that. At this point, if you come down with a cough and fever, you should assume you have COVID. As Chart 9 shows, social distancing measures have brought the number of viral respiratory illnesses down to almost zero in the United States. Up to 30% of common cold cases stem from the coronavirus family. Just like it would be foolhardy to assume that the common cold has been banished from the face of the earth, it would be unwise to assume that COVID will not return if containment measures are quickly lifted. Downside Risk: Permanent Economic Damage Chart 10No Spike In Bankruptcies For Now There are a lot of asymmetries in economics: It is easier to lose a job than to find one; starting a new business is also more difficult than going bankrupt. The good news so far is that bankruptcies have been limited and most unemployed workers have not been permanently laid off (Chart 10 and Chart 11). Thus, for the most part, the links that bind firms to workers have not been severed. Chart 11Temporary Layoffs Account For Most Of The Recent Increase In Unemployment Unfortunately, there is a risk that the economy will suffer permanent damage if unemployment remains high and economic activity stays depressed. For some sectors, such as airlines, long-term damage is nearly assured. It took a decade for real household spending on airlines to return to pre 9/11 levels (Chart 12). It could take even longer for the physiological scars of the pandemic to fade. While businesses outside the travel and hospitality sectors will see a quicker rebound, they could still experience subdued demand for as long as social distancing measures persist. Chart 129/11 Was A Big Shock For US Air Travel There is not much that fiscal policy can do to reverse the immediate hit to GDP from the pandemic. If people cannot work, they cannot produce. What fiscal stimulus can do is push enough money into the hands of households and firms to enable them to meet their financial obligations, while hopefully creating some pent-up demand that can be unleashed when businesses reopen. For now and for the foreseeable future, there is no need to tighten fiscal policy. The private sector in the major economies is generating plenty of savings with which governments can finance budget deficits. Indeed, standard economic theory suggests that if governments tried to “save more” by reducing budget deficits, total national savings would actually decline.10 Nevertheless, just as fiscal policy was prematurely tightened in many countries following the Great Recession, there is a risk that austerity measures will be reintroduced too quickly again. Likewise, calls to tighten monetary policy could grow louder. Just this week, Germany’s constitutional court ruled that the EU Court of Justice had overstepped its powers by failing to require the ECB to conduct an assessment of the “proportionality” of its controversial asset purchase policy. The German high court ordered the Bundesbank to suspend QE in three months unless the ECB Governing Council provides “documentation” showing it meets the criteria of proportionality. Among other things, the ruling could undermine the ECB’s newly launched €750 billion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP). Downside Risk: Geopolitical Tensions Had the virus originated anywhere else but China, President Trump could have made a political case for further deescalating the Sino-US trade war in an effort to shore up the US economy and stock market. Not only did that not happen, but the likelihood of a new clash between China and the US has gone up dramatically. Antipathy towards China is rising (Chart 13). As our geopolitical team has stressed, the US election is likely to be fought on who can sound tougher on China. With the economy on the ropes, Trump will try to paint Joe Biden as too passive and conflicted to stand up to China. Indeed, running as a “war president” may be Trump’s only chance of getting re-elected. Chart 13US Nationalism Is On The Rise Amid Broad-Based Anti-China Sentiment At the domestic political level, the pandemic has exacerbated already glaringly wide inequalities. While well-paid white-collar workers have been able to work from the comfort of their own homes, poorer blue-collar workers have either been furloughed or asked to continue working in a dangerous environment (in nursing homes or meat-packing plants, for example). It is not clear what the blowback from all this will be, but it is unlikely to be benign. Investment Implications Global equities and credit spreads have tracked the frequency of Google search queries for “coronavirus” remarkably well (Chart 14). As coronavirus queries rose, stocks plunged; as the number of queries subsided, stocks rallied. If there is a second wave of infections, anxiety about the virus is likely to grow again, leading to another sell-off in risk assets. Chart 14Joined At The Hip Chart 15Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term Earnings estimates have come down, but are still above where we think they ought to be. This makes global equities vulnerable to a correction (Chart 15). Meanwhile, retail investors have been active buyers, eagerly gobblingup stocks such as American Airlines and Norwegian Cruise Lines that have fallen on hard times recently (Chart 16). They have also been active buyers of the USO oil ETF, which is down 80% year-to-date. When retail investors are trying to catch a falling knife, that is usually an indication that stocks have yet to reach a bottom. As such, we recommend that investors maintain a somewhat cautious stance on the near-term direction of stocks. Chart 16Retail Investors Keen To Buy The Dip Chart 17Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon Chart 18USD Is A Countercyclical Currency Looking further out, the spread between earnings yields and bond yields is wide enough to justify a modest overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon (Chart 17). If global growth does end up rebounding, cyclicals should outperform defensives. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar will probably weaken (Chart 18). A weaker greenback, in turn, will boost commodity prices (Chart 19). Historically, stronger global growth and a softer dollar have translated into outperformance of non-US stocks relative to their US peers (Chart 20). Thus, investors should prepare to add international equity exposure to their portfolios later this year. Chart 19Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Weakens Chart 20Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening Box 1The Dynamics Of R Box 2Why Herd Immunity Is Not Enough Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Still Stuck In The Tree,” dated April 16, 2020. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Testing Times,” dated April 9, 2020. 3 Philip Anfinrud, Valentyn Stadnytskyi, et al., “Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering,” nejm.org (April 15, 2020); Jeremy Howard, Austin Huang, Li Zhiyuan, Zeynep Tufekci, Vladmir Zdimal, Helene-mari van der Westhuizen, et al., “Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review,” Preprints.org, (April 12, 2020); and Liang Tian, Xuefei Li, Fei Qi, Qian-Yuan Tang, Viola Tang, Jiang Liu, Zhiyuan Li, Xingye Cheng, Xuanxuan Li, Yingchen Shi, Haiguang Liu, and Lei-Han Tang, “Calibrated Intervention and Containment of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” arxiv.org (April 2, 2020). 4 “COVID-19 – Research Evidence Summaries,” Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; and Alison Boast, Alasdair Munro, and Henry Goldstein, “An evidence summary of Paediatric COVID-19 literature,” Don’t Forget The Bubbles (2020). 5 Hiroshi Nishiura, Hitoshi Oshitani, Tetsuro Kobayashi, Tomoya Saito, Tomimasa Sunagawa, Tamano Matsui, Takaji Wakita, MHLW COVID-19 Response Team, and Motoi Suzuki, “Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” medRxiv (April 16, 2020). 6 “Coronavirus: Arrests as California beachgoers defy lockdown,” Skynews (April 26, 2020); and “High-risk sex offender rearrested days after controversial release from OC Jail,” abc7.com (May 1, 2020). 7 Sun Hee Lee, Hyunjin Son, and Kyong Ran Peck, “Can post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 be considered as an outbreak response strategy in long-term care hospitals?” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (April 25, 2020). 8 Brendan Borrell, “New York clinical trial quietly tests heartburn remedy against coronavirus,” Science (April 26, 2020). 9 In the simplest models, the herd immunity threshold is reached when P = 1-1/Ro, where P is the proportion of the population which has acquired immunity and Ro is the basic reproductive number. Assuming an Ro of 3.5, heard immunity will be achieved once more than 71.4% of the population has been infected (1-1/3.5). For further discussion on this, please refer to Global Investment Strategy, “Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V,” dated March 27, 2020. 10 It is easiest to understand this point by considering a closed economy where savings, by definition, equals investment. Savings is the sum of private and public savings. Suppose the economy is depressed and the government increases public savings by either raising taxes or cutting spending. Since this action will further depress the economy, private investment will fall even more. But, since investment must equal total savings, private savings must decline more than proportionately with any increase in public savings. This happens because tighter fiscal policy leads to lower GDP. It is difficult to save if one does not have a job. To the extent that lower GDP reduces employment, it also tends to reduce private-sector savings. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores