Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Highlights Chart 1Will Fed Purchases Mark The Top? Will Fed Purchases Mark The Top? Will Fed Purchases Mark The Top? Policymakers can’t do much to boost economic activity when the entire population is under quarantine, but they can take steps to contain the ongoing credit shock and mitigate the risk of widespread corporate bankruptcy. If most firms can stay afloat, then at least there will be jobs to return to when shelter in place restrictions are lifted. Are the steps taken so far by the Federal Reserve and Congress sufficient in this regard? We expect that the Fed’s announcement of investment grade corporate bond purchases will mark the peak in investment grade corporate bond spreads (Chart 1). However, the Fed is doing nothing for high-yield issuers and its purchases only lower borrowing costs for investment grade firms, they don’t clean up highly levered balance sheets. Similarly, much of Congress’ fiscal stimulus package comes in the form of loans instead of grants. As such, ratings downgrades will surge and high-yield spreads probably have more near-term upside. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, overweight investment grade corporate bonds and remain cautious vis-à-vis high-yield. Investors should also take advantage of the attractive long-run value in TIPS. Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1040 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -1268 bps. The average index spread widened 251 bps from the beginning of the month until the Fed announced its corporate bond purchase programs. It then tightened by 90 bps. It currently sits at 283 bps. Even after the recent tightening, investment grade spreads are extremely high relative to history. Our measure of the 12-month breakeven spread adjusted for changing index credit quality ranks at its 89th percentile since 1989 (Chart 2).1 This means that the sector has only been cheaper 11% of the time since 1989. As we wrote in last week’s Special Report, the Fed’s two new corporate bond purchase programs could be thought of as adding an agency guarantee to eligible securities (those with 5-years to maturity or less).2  We would also expect ineligible (longer maturity) securities to benefit from some knock-on effects, since many firms issue at both the short and long ends of the curve. As such, we recommend an overweight allocation to investment grade corporate bonds, with a preference for the short-end of the curve (5-years or less). The Fed’s purchases should lead to spread tightening, and a steepening of the spread curve (panel 4).  Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Containing The Credit Shock Containing The Credit Shock Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* Containing The Credit Shock Containing The Credit Shock High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 1330 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -1659 bps. The average index spread widened 600 bps from the beginning of the month until the Fed announced its corporate bond purchase programs. It then tightened by 158 bps. It currently sits at 942 bps. As we wrote in last week’s Special Report, the Fed’s corporate bond purchases will cause investment grade corporate spreads to tighten, but so far, high-yield has been left out in the cold.3 This means that we must view high-yield spreads in the context of what sort of default cycle we expect for the next 12 months. To do that, we use our Default-Adjusted Spread – the excess spread available in the index after accounting for default losses. At current spreads, our base case expectation of an 11%-13% default rate and 20%-25% recovery rate implies a Default-Adjusted Spread between -98 bps and +117bps (Chart 3). For a true buying opportunity, we would prefer a Default-Adjusted Spread above its historical average of 250 bps. This means that we would consider upgrading high-yield to overweight if the index spread widens to a range of 1075 bps – 1290 bps, in the near-term. Until then, junk investors should stay cautious. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -81 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 13 bps on the month, driven by a 16 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread that was offset by a 3 bps decline in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). Like investment grade corporates, MBS spreads will benefit from aggressive Fed purchases for the foreseeable future. However, we prefer investment grade corporates over MBS because of much more attractive valuations. Notice that the option-adjusted spread offered by a Aa-rated corporate bond is 98 bps greater than that offered by a conventional 30-year MBS (Chart 4). Further, servicer back-log is currently keeping primary mortgage rates elevated compared to both Treasury and MBS yields (panels 4 & 5). This is preventing many homeowners from refinancing, despite the Fed’s dramatic rate cuts. However, we expect these homeowners will eventually get their chance. The Fed will be very cautious about raising rates in the future, and primary mortgage spreads will tighten as servicers add capacity. This means that there is a significant amount of refi risk that is not yet priced into MBS. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related Index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 574 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -667 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 1046 bps in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -1375 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 850 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -1023 bps. Local Authority debt underperformed Treasuries by 990 bps in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -948 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 96 bps in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -103 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 70 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -63 bps. USD-denominated Sovereigns handily outperformed Baa-rated corporate bonds during last month’s market riot (Chart 5). But going forward, we prefer to grab the extra spread available in Baa-rated corporates, with the added bonus that the corporate sector now benefits from direct Fed purchases. The Fed’s dollar swap lines should remove some of the liquidity premium priced into sovereign spreads, but these swap lines only extend to 14 countries (Euro Area, Canada, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Korea, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden) and further dollar appreciation is possible until global growth recovers. One silver lining of last month’s indiscriminate spread widening is that some value has been created in traditionally low-risk sectors. Specifically, the Domestic Agency and Supranational option-adjusted spreads are at 46 bps and 31 bps, respectively (bottom panel). Both look like attractive buying opportunities. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by a whopping 649 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -755 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). In fact, Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratios have blown out across the entire curve and have made new all-time highs, above where they were during the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 6). While the spread levels are alarming, it’s not hard to understand why muni spread widening has been so dramatic. State and local governments are not only shouldering massive expenses fighting the COVID-19 crisis, but will also see tax revenues plunge as economic activity grinds to a halt. This opens up a massive whole in state & local government budgets and municipal bond prices are reacting in kind. Support in the form of Fed municipal bond purchases and direct cash injections from the federal government is required to right the ship. So far, the Fed is only supporting municipal debt with less than six months to maturity and federal government aid has come in the form of grants directed at specific spending areas. Ideally, the Fed will start purchasing long-dated municipal bonds (as it is doing with corporates) and the federal government will provide more direct aid to fill budget gaps. We expect both of those policies to be launched in the coming weeks, and thus think it is a good time to buy municipal bonds on the expectation that the “policy put” will drive spreads lower. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve underwent a massive bull-steepening in March, as the Fed cut rates by 100 bps, all the way back to the zero bound. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope steepened 20 bps on the month. It currently sits at 39 bps. The 5-year/30-year Treasury slope steepened 22 bps on the month. It currently sits at 85 bps. One good thing about the fed funds rate being pinned at zero is that it greatly simplifies yield curve strategy. As we showed in a recent report, when the funds rate is at its lower bound the Treasury slope will trade directionally with yields.4 That is, the yield curve will steepen when yields rise and flatten when they fall. Therefore, if you want to put on a position that will profit from lower yields but that doesn’t increase the average duration of your portfolio, you can enter a duration-neutral flattener: long a 2/10 or 2/30 barbell and short the 5-year or 7-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. Or, if like us, you do not want to make a large duration bet but suspect that Treasury yields will be higher in 12 months, you can enter a duration-neutral steepener: long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell.5 In terms of value, the 5-year yield no longer trades deeply negative relative to the 2/10 and 2/30 barbells (Chart 7), though it remains somewhat expensive according to our models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 515 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -735 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 55 bps on the month. It currently sits at 1.09%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 24 bps on the month. It currently sits at 1.39%. As we noted in a recent report, the market crash has created an extraordinary amount of long-run value in TIPS.6 For example, the 10-year and 5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen to 1.09% and 0.78%, respectively. This means that a buy & hold position long the TIPS and short the equivalent-maturity nominal Treasury will make money if average annual inflation is greater than 0.78% for the next five years, or greater than 1.09% for the next ten (Chart 8). This seems like a slam dunk. Even on a 1-year horizon, we would argue that TIPS trades make sense. We calculate that the TIPS note maturing in April 2021 will deliver greater returns than a 12-month T-bill as long as headline CPI inflation is above -1.25% during the next 12 months (panel 4). Granted, the oil price collapse is a significant drag on CPI (bottom panel). But, we would also note that the worst year-over-year CPI print during the 2008 financial crisis was -2.1% and this included deflation in the shelter component. Shelter accounts for 33% of the CPI, compared to only 7% for Energy. ABS: Underweight  Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 342 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -317 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS soared 158 bps on the month. It currently sits at 163 bps, well above average historical levels (Chart 9). Aaa-rated consumer ABS were not immune to the recent sell-off, but we think today’s elevated spreads signal an opportunity to increase exposure to the sector. In addition to the value argument, the Fed’s re-launched Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) should cause Aaa-rated ABS spreads to tighten in the coming months. Through TALF, eligible private investors can take out non-recourse loans from the Fed and use the proceeds to purchase Aaa-rated ABS. In our view, the combination of elevated spreads and direct Fed support for the sector suggests a buying opportunity in Aaa-rated consumer ABS. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral  Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 786 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -785 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 133 bps on the month. It currently sits at 217 bps, well above typical historical levels (Chart 10). Despite wide spreads, we are hesitant about stepping into the sector. The Fed has so far not extended its asset purchases to non-agency CMBS. There are other sectors – such as consumer ABS, Agency CMBS, and investment grade corporate bonds – that also offer attractive spreads and are benefitting directly from Fed support. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 394 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -361 bps. The average index spread for Agency CMBS widened 74 bps on the month. It currently sits at 121 bps, well above typical historical levels (panel 3). Unlike its non-agency counterpart, the Fed is buying Agency CMBS as part of its mortgage-backed securities purchase program. The combination of an elevated spread and direct Fed support makes the Agency CMBS sector a high conviction overweight. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing With the federal funds rate pinned at its effective lower bound for the foreseeable future, yield volatility at the front-end of the curve will decline markedly. This means that the 12-month fed funds rate expectations embedded in the yield curve provide little useful information. As such, our Golden Rule of Bond Investing is not a useful framework for implementing duration trades when the fed funds rate is pinned at zero. We will therefore temporarily stop updating the Golden Rule tables that were previously shown in Appendix A of our monthly Portfolio Allocation Summary. The Golden Rule framework will return when the fed funds rate is close to lifting off from zero. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.     Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of April 3, 2020) Containing The Credit Shock Containing The Credit Shock Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of April 3, 2020) Containing The Credit Shock Containing The Credit Shock Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 46 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 46 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Containing The Credit Shock Containing The Credit Shock Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of April 3, 2020) The Golden Rule's Track Record The Golden Rule's Track Record   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required to deliver negative excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis”, dated March 31, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis”, dated March 31, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Life At The Zero Bound”, dated March 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 The rationale for why barbell positions profit from curve flattening and bullet positions profit from curve steepening is found in US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights The economic shutdown needed to exhaust the coronavirus pandemic must last much longer than is anticipated. For example, in Italy it must last 24 weeks. If the economy is reopened too soon, the pandemic will reignite in a second wave later this year, just as in 1918. Take the 12 percent profit in the tactical overweight to equities versus bonds and go neutral. Stay underweight European equities and euro area banks given their high sensitivity to the economy. Stay overweight US T-bonds versus German bunds and Swiss bonds. All high-quality bond yields will eventually reach the lower bound of -1 percent, making US T-bonds the most attractive in class. The euro is a structural overweight but a tactical neutral – because in equity market corrections the repatriation of foreign investments into domestic cash boosts the demand for dollars relative to the euro. Fractal trades: Go long Australia versus New Zealand. Short palladium versus nickel was closed at 32 percent profit. Feature “You’ve got to understand that you don’t make the timeline, the virus makes the timeline” – Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases It’s A Biological Crisis The coronavirus crisis is first and foremost a biological crisis. This makes it fundamentally different to the 2008 global financial crisis, the 2000 dot com bust, the 1990 Japanese crash, and the 1930s Great Depression – all of which were financial crises needing financial and economic cures. As such, the current crisis needs to be analysed very differently. Crucially, the financial and economic policy responses to the coronavirus crisis are only a palliative, not a cure. The cure is to exhaust the coronavirus pandemic. But to exhaust the pandemic without overburdening stretched healthcare systems will require shutting the economy for months. If the economy is reopened too soon, then the pandemic will reignite in a second and a possible third wave just as in 1918-19 (Chart of the Week). Chart I-1If The Economy Is Reopened Too Soon The Pandemic Will Reignite, Just As In 1918-19 If The Economy Is Reopened Too Soon The Pandemic Will Reignite, Just As In 1918-19 If The Economy Is Reopened Too Soon The Pandemic Will Reignite, Just As In 1918-19 The US fiscal stimulus package amounts to 10 percent of annual GDP. But if exhausting the pandemic requires a third of the economy to be shut for a third of the year, then the economy would lose one ninth, or 11 percent, of its annual output. Hence, despite the biggest fiscal boost of all time, the economy would end up shrinking (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Fiscal Stimulus Is Massive, But Might Not Be Enough The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks Meanwhile, Germany’s willingness to remove the ‘debt brake’ that limits its structural federal deficit to 0.35 percent of GDP, the willingness to issue euro ‘corona-bonds’, and the ECB’s willingness to increase the size and breath of its asset-purchase program are minor details in a much bigger story. Rather like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Ignore the minor details and concentrate on the bigger story. How long must the economy stay shut to exhaust the pandemic? The Crucial Metric Is Not Mortality, It Is Morbidity Some people counter that in shutting the economy, “the cure is worse than the disease”. They argue that most coronavirus victims suffer mild or no illness. Moreover, the mortality rate is low and might not be much higher than that of the flu. Even if this turns out to be true, the argument misses the point. Death requires very little medical intervention and resource, whereas severe illness requires massive medical intervention and resource. Moreover, when the severe illness is a respiratory illness, it leaves the sufferer struggling to breathe and needing ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU). No civilized society can deny an ICU to somebody who is struggling to breathe. Therefore, the most important metric for the coronavirus crisis is not its mortality rate, but rather its morbidity (severe illness) rate. Or more specifically, the morbidity rate versus the economy’s ICU capacity. How long must the economy stay shut to exhaust the pandemic? Enter the Diamond Princess. The cruise ship turned into a laboratory for the coronavirus because all 3700 passengers and crew were quarantined and tested for the infection. Of the 700 people who tested positive, 11 have subsequently died. But the more important point is that 45 people needed ICU treatment, meaning the coronavirus morbidity rate was four times its mortality rate (Table I-1). Table I-1On The Diamond Princess, The COVID-19 Morbidity Rate Was Four Times Its Mortality Rate The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks A separate study by the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre in the UK corroborates this, suggesting that the coronavirus morbidity rate is around three times the mortality rate and that the average time in an ICU for a coronavirus patient is half a week.1 Let’s be optimistic and assume that the coronavirus mortality rate is around 0.3 percent and that its morbidity rate is around three times higher at 1 percent. This means that if a hundred thousand people get infected, one thousand will need ICU treatment. But even advanced economies have only a dozen or so ICU beds per hundred thousand people. For example, Italy has 12.5 (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Advanced Economies Have Only A Dozen Or So ICU Beds Per Hundred Thousand People The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks If each severely ill coronavirus patient averages half a week in an ICU, this means that only 2500 Italians out of hundred thousand, or 2.5 percent of the population, can get infected every week before the ICU capacity is breached. Northern Italy, specifically Lombardy, went into crisis because it allowed its coronavirus infection rate to breach its ICU capacity. Yet ‘flattening the curve’ of infections comes at a cost. Keeping the weekly infection rate below ICU capacity means that the infection rate must be suppressed for longer to achieve the holy grail of ‘herd immunity’. This is the point when around 60 percent of the population have caught the disease. To achieve herd immunity without breaching its ICU capacity, Italy would have to shut its economy for 24 weeks. Other economies might need less or more time depending on their own morbidity rates versus ICU capacity, but it would still be a minimum of many months. Meaning that the draconian measures that flatten the infection curve – quarantining, social distancing, and essentially shutting the economy – must also stay in place for many months after infection rates have stopped rising. Therein lies the big problem.2 If The Economy Reopens Too Soon The Pandemic Will Reignite A pandemic is a classic complex adaptive system. Its evolution depends on the sum of many millions of individual actions which themselves depend on the evolving pandemic data.  When mortality, morbidity and infection rates are surging the public will sense an emergency, and so accept the loss of liberty and livelihood that comes from quarantining and shutting the economy. The result is that ‘R-nought’ – the number of people that each infected person infects – drops, which suppresses the pandemic. If the economy reopens too soon, the pandemic will reignite in a second wave. But once infection rates level off or reverse, the public’s sense of emergency dissipates. People push back against the continued loss of liberty and livelihood. As do policymakers, especially those seeking imminent re-election. The result is that R-nought reaccelerates. In fact, the emergency has not dissipated. Once R-nought reaccelerates, the large proportion of the population who have not been infected are sitting ducks for the virus. Therefore, if the economy reopens too soon, the pandemic will reignite in a second wave (Chart I-4). Chart I-4When A Large Proportion Of The Population Is Uninfected, ‘R-Nought’ Must Stay Low The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks History provides a salutary warning. During the 1918-19 pandemic, no US city experienced a second wave while its main battery of social distancing policies remained in place. Second waves only occurred after the city economies were reopened too soon.3 Implications For The Financial Markets The key message is that the economic shutdown must last longer than is anticipated. And that if the economy is reopened too soon, the pandemic will reignite in a second wave later this year. Therefore: 1. Move to neutral equities tactically: Our March 12 tactical recommendation to overweight equities versus bonds (long S&P500 versus German 30-year bund) achieved its 12 percent profit target and is now closed (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Technical Rebound Has Happened As Predicted The Technical Rebound Has Happened As Predicted The Technical Rebound Has Happened As Predicted 2. Overweight equities on a long-term horizon: Investors with a 2 year or longer horizon beyond the pandemic should overweight equities versus bonds – because the prospective annualised return from equities, 6 percent, is much more attractive than that from bonds, 1 percent (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6The Prospective Annual Return From Equities At 6 Percent… The Prospective Annual Return From Equities At 6 Percent... The Prospective Annual Return From Equities At 6 Percent... Chart I-7...Is Much More Attractive Than 1 Percent From Bonds ...Is Much More Attractive Than 1 Percent From Bonds ...Is Much More Attractive Than 1 Percent From Bonds 3. Underweight European equities: Our 2020 recommendation to underweight the euro area relative to the US and Japan is providing rich rewards as the S&P 500 has outperformed by 8 percent, and the Nikkei 225 has outperformed by 10 percent. Given the economic sensitivity of the Eurostoxx 50, stay underweight. 4. Underweight euro area banks: Likewise, euro area banks have underperformed the market by almost 25 percent this year. But it is too soon to remove this underweight. 5. Overweight US T-bonds versus German bunds and Swiss bonds: The US 30-year T-bond has outperformed the German 30-year bund by 18 percent this year. Stick with this position. Ultimately, all high-quality bond yields are going to hit the lower bound of -1 percent, making US T-bonds the most attractive in class. 6. The euro is a structural overweight but a tactical neutral: The structural pecking order for currencies is the reverse of bonds. However, during equity market corrections the repatriation of foreign investments into domestic cash boosts the demand for dollars relative to other currencies. This warrants a tactically neutral stance to the euro. Fractal Trading System* The fractal trading system has performed very well during the recent crisis. Long S&P 500 versus the German 30-year bund delivered its 12 percent profit target. And short palladium versus nickel delivered its 32 percent profit target. This week’s recommended trade is to go long Australia versus New Zealand expressed through their MSCI (US$) indexes. The profit target is 12 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 64 percent. Chart I-8Australia Vs. New Zealand Australia Vs. New Zealand Australia Vs. New Zealand When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Source: ICNARC report on COVID-19 in critical care, 27 March 2020 2 If 60 percent are infected, then 0.6 percent would require an ICU. This equates to 600 people out of a hundred thousand for whom there are 12.5 ICUs. If the average stay in the ICU is half a week, this would require 600/12.5 half weeks, or 0.5*600/12.5 full weeks = 24 weeks. 3 Source: Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic; Hatchett, Mecher, and Lipsitch Fractal Trading System The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks The Economy Must Shut For 24 Weeks Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Recommended Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality The outlook for markets over the next few months is highly uncertain. On the optimistic side, new COVID-19 cases are probably close to peaking (for now), and so equities could continue to rally. But there are many risks too. Growth numbers will be horrendous for some months. Second-round effects (corporate defaults, problems in EM and with euro zone banks, for example) will emerge. We recommend a balanced portfolio, robust both for risk-on rallies and a further sell-off. We stay overweight equities versus bonds. Government bonds will not provide significantly positive returns even in a severe recession. Thus, over the next 12-months, equities are likely to outperform them. But we leaven the equity overweight with a “minimum volatility” strategy, overweight the low-beta US market, and more stable sectors such as Healthcare and Technology. Within bonds, we stay underweight government bonds, and raise Investment Grade credit to overweight, given the Fed’s backstop. Even in a risk-on rally, government yields will not rise quickly so we recommend a neutral stance on duration. The massive stimulus will eventually be inflationary, so we recommend TIPS, which are very cheaply valued. We are overweight cash and gold as hedges against further market turbulence. Among alternatives, macro hedge funds and farmland look attractively defensive now. We would start to look for opportunities in private debt (especially distressed debt) as the recession advances. Commodity futures are attractive as an inflation hedge. Overview Playing The Optionality From the start of the crisis, we argued that markets would bottom around the time when new cases of COVID-19 peaked. At the end of March, there were clear signs that this would happen in April, with Italy and Spain having probably already peaked and the US, if it follows the same trajectory, being only two or three weeks away (Chart 1). Chart 1Close To A Peak In New Cases? Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality But what happens next? A relief rally is likely, as often happens in bear markets – and indeed one probably started with the three-day 18% rise in US equities in the last week of March. Note, for example, the strong rallies in spring 2008 and summer 2000 before the second leg down in those bear markets (Chart 2). Chart 2Mid Bear Market Rallies Are Common Mid Bear Market Rallies Are Common Mid Bear Market Rallies Are Common However, there is still a lot of potential bad news for markets to digest. Global growth has collapsed, as a result of people in many countries being forced to stay at home. US GDP growth in Q2 could fall by as much as 10% quarter-on-quarter (unannualized). Horrendously bad data will come as a shock to investors over the coming months. Despite the unprecedented stimulus measures from central banks and governments worldwide (Chart 3), nasty second-round effects are inevitable. Given the high level of corporate debt in the US, defaults will rise, to perhaps above the level of 2008-9 (Chart 4). EM borrowers have almost $4 trillion of foreign-currency debt outstanding, and will struggle to service this after the rise in the dollar and wider credit spreads. Euro area banks are poorly capitalized and have high non-performing debt levels left over from the last recession; they will be hit by a new wave of bankruptcies. Undoubtedly, there are some banks and hedge funds sitting on big trading losses after the drastic sell-off and stomach-churning volatility. Mid-East sovereign wealth funds will unload more assets to fill fiscal holes left by the collapsed oil price. Chart 3Massive Stimulus Everywhere Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Chart 4Possible Second-Round Effects Possible Second-Round Effects Possible Second-Round Effects     There is also the question of when the pandemic will end. We are not epidemiologists, so find this hard to judge (but please refer to the answers from an authority in our recent Special Report1). The coronavirus will disappear only when either enough people in a community have had the disease to produce “herd immunity,” or there is a vaccine – which is probably 18 months away.  Some epidemiologists argue that in the UK and Italy 40%-60% of the population may have already had COVID-19 and are therefore immune.2 But an influential paper from researchers at Imperial College suggested that repeated periods of lockdown will be necessary each time a new wave of cases emerges3 (Chart 5). Chart 5More Waves Of The Pandemic To Come? Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality At the end of March, global equities were only 23% off their mid-February record high – and were down only 34% even at their low point. That doesn’t seem like enough to fully discount all the potential pitfalls over coming months. This sort of highly uncertain environment is where portfolio construction comes in. We recommend that clients position their portfolios with optionality to remain robust in any likely outcome. There are likely to be rallies in risk assets over coming months, particularly when the coronavirus shows signs of petering out. There is significant asymmetric career risk for portfolio managers here. No portfolio manager will be fired for missing the pandemic and underperforming year-to-date (though some may because their firms go out of business or retrench). But a PM who misses a V-shaped rebound in risk assets over the rest of the year could lose their job.  This will provide a strong incentive to try to pick the bottom. Chart 6Bond Yields Can't Go Much Lower Bond Yields Can't Go Much Lower Bond Yields Can't Go Much Lower Government bond yields are close to their theoretical lows. The 10-year US Treasury yield is 0.6% and it unlikely to fall below 0% even in a severe recession (since the Fed has stated that it will not cut short-term rates below 0%). In other countries, the low for yields has turned out to be around -0.3% to -0.9% (Chart 6). The total return from risk-free bonds, therefore, will be close to zero even in a dire economic environment (Table 1). This means that the call between bonds and equities comes down to whether equity prices will be higher or lower in 12-months. Quite likely, they will be higher. Given this, and the optionality of participating in rebounds, we maintain our overweight on equities versus bonds. We would, however, be inclined to lower our equity weighting in the event of a big rally in stocks over the next few months.   Table 1Not Much Room For Upside From Bonds Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Table 2Bear Markets Are Often Much Worse Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality But there are also many downside risks. In the past two recessions, global equities fell by 50%-60% (Table 2). Despite the much worse economic environment this time, the peak-to-trough decline is so far much more limited. Moreover, valuations are not particularly compelling yet (Chart 7). To leaven our overall overweight on equities, we recommend a “minimum volatility” strategy, with tilts towards the low-beta US market, and some more defensive sectors such as Healthcare and Technology. China and China-related stocks also look somewhat attractive, since that country got over the coronavirus first, and is responding with a big increase in infrastructure spending (Chart 8). To hedge against downside risk, we also leave in place our overweights in cash and gold. Chart 7Equities Are Not Yet Super Cheap Equities Are Not Yet Super Cheap Equities Are Not Yet Super Cheap Chart 8China Infra Spending To Rise China Infra Spending To Rise China Infra Spending To Rise Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking – About The Coronavirus Have We Seen The Bottom In Equity Markets?  Chart 9Watch Closely COVID-19 Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality After hitting a low on March 23, global equities have recovered more than one-third of their loss during this particularly rapid bear market, in response to the massive monetary and fiscal stimulus around the globe. It’s very hard to pinpoint the exact bottom of any equity bear market.  The current one is particularly difficult in two ways: First, it was largely due to the exogenous shock from the COVID-19 pandemic. If history is any guide, we will first need to see a peak in infected cases globally before we can call a true bottom in equities (Chart 9). Second, the massive and coordinated response from central banks and governments around the world is unprecedented, as the global “lockdown” freezes the global economy. It’s encouraging to see the Chinese PMI bouncing back to 52 in March after a sharp drop to deep contraction level in February. However, the bounce back was mostly from production. Both export orders and imports remain weak. US initial jobless claims have skyrocketed to 3.3 million. If the peak of infection in the US follows similar patterns in China and Italy, then it would be another encouraging sign even if the US economic data continued to get worse. BCA Research’s base-case is for this recession to have a U-shaped recovery. This means that equity markets are likely to be range bound until we have a better handle on the future course of the pandemic. As such, we suggest investors actively manage risk by adding to positions when the S&P 500 gets close to 2250 and reducing risk when it gets close to 2750 during the bottoming process. What Will Be The Long-Term Consequences? Maybe it seems too early to think about this, but the coronavirus pandemic will change the world at least as profoundly as did the 1970s inflation, 9/11, and the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Here are some things that might change: Chart 10Government Debt Will Rise Significantly Government Debt Will Rise Significantly Government Debt Will Rise Significantly Government debt levels will rise dramatically, as a result of the huge fiscal packages being (rightly) implemented by many countries. In the US, after the $2 trillion spending increase and a fall in tax revenues, the annual fiscal deficit will rise from 6% of GDP to 15%-20%. Government debt/GDP could exceed the 122% reached at the end of WW2 (Chart 10). Ultimately, central banks will have to monetize this debt, perhaps by capping long-term rates or by buying a substantial part of issuance. This could prove to be inflationary. Households and companies may want to build in greater cushions and no longer live “on the edge”. US households have repaired their balance-sheets since 2009, raising the savings rate to 8% (Chart 11). But surveys suggest that almost one-third of US households have less than $1,000 in savings. They may, therefore, now save more. This could depress consumption further in coming years. Companies have maximized profitability over the past decades, under pressure from shareholders, by keeping inventories, spare cash, and excess workers to a minimum. Given the sudden stop caused by the pandemic (and who is to say that there will not be more pandemics in future), companies may want to protect themselves from future shocks. The inventory/sales ratio, which had been falling for decades, has picked up a little since the GFC (Chart 12). Inventory levels are likely to be raised further. Companies may also run less leveraged balance-sheets, rather than hold the maximum amount of debt their targeted credit rating can bear. This is all likely to reduce long-term profit growth. Chart 11Households May Become Even More Cautious Households May Become Even More Cautious Households May Become Even More Cautious Chart 12Companies Will Run With Higher Inventories Companies Will Run With Higher Inventories Companies Will Run With Higher Inventories The pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of healthcare systems. China still spends only 5% of GDP on health, compared to 9% in Brazil and 8% in South Africa (Chart 13). The lack of intensive care beds and woefully inadequate epidemic plans in the US and other developed countries will also need to be tackled. Healthcare stocks should benefit. Chart 13Healthcare Spending Will Need To Rise Healthcare Spending Will Need To Rise Healthcare Spending Will Need To Rise How Risky Are Euro Area Banks? Chart 14Euro Area Banks Are Quite Fragile Euro Area Banks Are Quite Fragile Euro Area Banks Are Quite Fragile Banks in the euro area have underperformed their developed market peers by over 65% since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart 14, panel 1). Their structural issues – many of which we highlighted in a previous Special Report – remain unsolved.  Euro area banks remain highly leveraged compared to their US counterparts (panel 2). Their exposure to emerging economies is high (panel 3), and they continue to be a major provider of European corporate funding. US corporates, by contrast, are mainly funded through capital markets. The sector is also highly fragmented with both outward and inward M&A activity declining post the GFC. Profitability continues to be a key long-term concern, despite having recently stabilized (panel 4). The ECB’s ultra-dovish monetary stance and negative policy rates do not help banks’ performance either.  Banks’ relative return has been correlated to the ECB policy rate since the GFC (panel 5). Following the coronavirus outbreak, the ECB is likely to remain dovish for a prolonged period. The ECB’s recently announced measures should, however, provide banks with ample liquidity to hold and spur economic activity through increased lending to households and corporates. Absent consolidation in the European banking sector, competition is likely to dampen banks’ profits. Additionally, the severity of the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus outbreak will determine if their significant exposure to emerging economies, the energy sector, and domestic corporates will hurt them further. For now, we would recommend investors underweight euro area banks. Where Can I Get Income In This Low-Yield World? Chart 15The Bear Market Has Unveiled Attractive Income Opportunities The Bear Market Has Unveiled Attractive Income Opportunities The Bear Market Has Unveiled Attractive Income Opportunities For long-term investors who can tolerate price volatility, there is currently an opportunity to invest in high-income securities at relatively cheap prices. Below we list three of our favorite assets to obtain income returns: Dividend Aristocrats: The S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index is composed of S&P 500 companies which have increased dividend payouts for 25 consecutive years or more. In order to provide such a steady stream of income through a such long timeframe, and even provide dividend increases in recessions, the companies in this index need to have a track record of running cashflow-rich businesses. Thus, the risk of dividend cuts is relatively low in these companies. Currently, the Dividend Aristocrat Index has a trailing dividend yield of 3.2% (Chart 15 – top panel). Fallen Angels: As we discussed in our November Special Report, fallen angels have attractive characteristics that separate them from the rest of the junk market. They tend to have longer maturities as well as a higher credit quality than the overall index. Crucially, fallen angels often enter the high-yield index at a discount, since certain institutional investors are forced to sell them when they are no longer IG-rated (middle panel). Thus, selected fallen angels which are not at a substantial risk of default could be a tremendous income opportunity. Currently fallen angels have a yield to worst of 10.65%. Sovereign US dollar EM debt: Our Emerging Markets Strategy service has argued that most EM sovereigns are unlikely to default on their debts, and instead will use their currencies as a release valve to ease financial conditions in their economies. Thus, hard-currency sovereign issues could prove to be attractive income investments if held to maturity. The bottom panel of Chart 15 (panel 3) shows the current yield-to-worst of the EM sovereign hard currency debt that has an overweight rating by our Emerging Markets service. Global Economy Chart 16The Collapse Begins The Collapse Begins The Collapse Begins Overview: The global economy in early January looked on the cusp of a strong manufacturing pickup, driven by the natural cycle and by moderate fiscal stimulus out of China. The coronavirus changed all that. We now face a recession of a severity unseen since the 1930s. The fiscal and monetary response has been similarly rapid and radical. This will tackle immediate liquidity and even solvency risks. But, with consumers in many countries confined to their homes, a recovery is entirely dependent on when the number of new cases of COVID-19 peaks. In an optimistic scenario, this might be in late April or May. On a pessimistic one, the pandemic will continue in waves for several quarters.  US: It is highly likely that the NBER will eventually declare that the US entered recession in March 2020. With many states in lockdown, consumption (which comprises 70% of GDP) will slump: only half of consumption is non-discretionary (rent, food, utility bills etc.); the other half is likely to shrink significantly while lockdowns continue. Judged by the 3.3 million initial claims in the week of March 16-21, unemployment will jump from its February level of 3.5% very rapidly towards 10%. Fiscal and monetary stimulus measures will cushion the downside (enabling households to pay rent and companies to service debt). But whether the recession is V-shaped or prolonged will be dependent on the length of the pandemic. Euro Area: European manufacturing growth was showing clear signs of picking up before the coronavirus pandemic hit (Chart 16 panel 1). But lockdowns in Italy, Spain and other countries will clearly push growth way into negative territory. The severity is clear from the first datapoints to reflect March activity, such as the ZEW survey. The ECB, after an initially disappointing response, has promised EUR750 billion (and more if needed) in bond purchases. The fiscal response so far has been more lukewarm, although Germany has now scrapped its requirement to run a budget surplus. One key question: will the stronger nothern European economies agree to “euro bonds”, joint and severally guaranteed, to finance fiscal spending in the weaker periphery?   Chart 17...With Chinese Data Leading The Way ...With Chinese Data Leading The Way ...With Chinese Data Leading The Way Japan: Japan’s economy was performing poorly even before the coronavirus pandemic, mainly because of the side-effects of last October’s consumption tax hike, and the slowdown in China (Chart 17, panel 2). So far, Japan has seen fewer cases of COIVD-19 than other large countries, but this may just reflect a lack of testing. Japan also has less room for policy response. Government debt is already 250% of GDP. The Bank of Japan has moderately increased purchases of equity ETFs and remains committed to maintaining government bonds yields around 0%. But Japan seems culturally and institutionally unable to roll out the sort of ultra-radical measures taken in other developed economies. Emerging Markets: China’s economy was severely disrupted in January and February, as reflected in an unprecedented collapse of the Caixin Services PMI to 26.5 (Chart 17, panel 3). However, big data (such as traffic congestion) suggest that in March people were gradually returning to work and companies restarting manufacturing operations. Q1 GDP growth will clearly be negative, and growth for the year may be barely above 0%. The authorities are ramping up infrastructure spending, which BCA expects to grow by 6-8% this year.4 Interest rates have also fallen below their 2015 levels, but not yet to their 2009 lows. Both fiscal and monetary policy are likely to be eased further. Elsewhere in Emerging Markets, the key question is whether central banks will cut rates to support rapidly weakening economies, or keep rates steady to prop up collapsing currencies. This is not an easy choice. Interest Rates: Central banks in developed markets have cut rates to their lowest possible levels with the Fed, for example, slashing from 1.25%-1.5% to 0%-0.25% within just 10 days in March. The Fed has signalled that it will not go below zero. Short-term policy rates globally, therefore, have essentially hit their lower bounds. Long-term rates have been volatile, with the 10-year US Treasury yield swinging down to 0.6% before jumping to 1.2%. While uncertainty continues, long-term risk-free rates are unlikely to rise substantially and, in the event of a prolonged severe recession, we would see the US 10-year yield falling to zero – but no lower. Global Equities Chart 18Is The V-Shaped Recovery Sustainable? Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality What’s Next?  Global equities lost 32.8% year-to-date as of March 23, 2020. All countries and sectors in our coverage were in the red. Even the best performing country (Japan) and the best performing global sector (Consumer Staples) lost 26.7% and 23.2% respectively.  From March 24 to March 26, however, equities made the best three-day gains since the Great Depression, recouping about one-third of the loss,  even though US initial jobless claims came in at 3.3 million and also the US reported a higher number of cumulative infected people than China, with a much higher number of deaths per million people (Chart 18). So have we reached the bottom of the bear market? Is this “V-shaped” recovery sustainable? How should an investor construct a multi-asset global portfolio that’s sound for the next 9-12 months given the uncertainty associated with COVID-19 and the massive monetary and fiscal stimulus around the world? Based on our long-held philosophy of taking risks where risks will most likely be rewarded, we are most comfortable taking risk at the asset class level, by overweighting equities versus bonds, together with overweights in cash and gold as hedges. Within the equity portfolio, we are reducing risk by making the following adjustments: Upgrade US to overweight from underweight financed by downgrading the euro zone to underweight from overweight. Upgrade Tech to overweight, while closing two overweight bets on Financials and Energy and one underweight on consumer staples to benchmark weighting.   Country Allocation: Becoming More Defensive Chart 19US And Euro Area: Trading Places US And Euro Area: Trading Places US And Euro Area: Trading Places In December 2019 we added risk by upgrading the euro area to overweight and Emerging Markets to neutral based on our macro view that the global economy was on its way to recovery.  Data releases in January did show signs of recovery in the global economy. However, the COVID-19 outbreak has changed the global landscape, and we are clearly in a recession now.  When conditions change, we change our recommendations. We must make a judgment call because the economic data will not give us any timely, useful readings for some time to come. Back in December, the key reason to upgrade the euro area was the recovery of China which flows into the exports of the euro area. We think China will continue to stimulate its economy. However, given the global growth collapse, the “flow through” effect to the euro area will be delayed for some time. We prefer to play the China effect directly rather than indirectly. That’s why we maintain the neutral weighting of EM versus DM, but downgrade the euro area to underweight, and upgrade US to overweight. We also note the two following factors: First, as shown in Chart 19, panel 1, the relative performance between the euro area and the US is highly correlated with the relative performance between global Financials and Technology. This is not surprising given the sector composition of the two region’s equity indices. As such, this country adjustment is in line with our sector adjustment of upgrading Technology and downgrading Financials. Second, with a lower beta, US equities provide a better defense when economic uncertainty and financial market volatility are high. The risk to this adjustment, however, is valuation. As shown in panel 4, euro area valuation is extremely cheap compared to the US. However, PMI releases as well as forward earnings estimates are likely to get worse again before they get better, given the region’s reliance on exports to China and the structural issues in its banking system. Global Sector Allocation: Getting Closer To Benchmark Chart 20Reducing Sector Bets Reducing Sector Bets Reducing Sector Bets We make four changes in the global sector portfolio to reduce sector bets, since we do not have a high conviction given market volatility and our house view that recovery out of this recession will be U-shaped. These are downgrading Financials to neutral, while upgrading Technology to overweight. We also close the overweight in Energy and underweight in Consumer Staples, leaving them both at benchmark weighting. Financials: We upgraded Financials in October last year as an upside hedge. This move did not pan out as bond yields plummeted. BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy service upgraded duration to neutral from underweight on March 10 as they do not see a high likelihood for yields to move significantly higher over the next 9-12 months. This does not bode well for Financials’ performance (Chart 20, panel 1). Even though the Fed and other central banks have come in as the lenders of last resort, loan growth could be weak going forward and non-performing loans could increase, especially in the euro area. Valuation, however, is very attractive. Technology: DRAM prices started to improve even before the COVID-19 outbreak. The global lockdown to fight against the pandemic is further spurring demand for both software and hardware, which should support better earnings growth (panel 2). The risk is that relative valuation is still not cheap, even though absolute valuation has come down after the recent selloff. Energy:  The outlook for oil prices is too uncertain. The fight between Saudi Arabia and Russia is weighing on the supply side, while the global lockdown is denting demand prospect. The earnings outlook for energy companies is dire, while valuations are very attractive (panel 3). Consumer Staples: This is a classic defensive sector that does well in recessions. In addition, its relative valuation has improved to neutral from very expensive (panel 4).   Government Bonds Chart 21Stay Aside On Duration Stay Aside On Duration Stay Aside On Duration Upgrade Duration To Neutral. Global bond yields had a wild ride in Q1 as equities plummeted into bear market territory. The 10-year US Treasury yield made an historical low of 0.32% overnight on March 9, then quickly reversed back up to 1.27% on March 18, closing the quarter at 0.67%, compared to 1.88% at the beginning of the quarter (Chart 21). We are already in a recession and BCA’s house view is for a U-shaped recovery. This implies that global bond yields will likely follow a bottoming process similar to global equities, as new infections peak and high-frequency economic data start to recover. As such, we upgrade our duration call to neutral, to be in line with the position of BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy (USBS) service. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds.  The combined effect of the plummet in oil prices and the coronavirus outbreak has crushed inflation expectation to an extremely low level. As shown in Chart 22, the 10-year breakeven inflation rate is currently at 0.95%, 88 bps lower than its fair value. The fair value is estimated based on USBS’s Adaptive Expectations Model.  Investors with a 12-month investment horizon should continue to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries, but those with shorter horizons may be advised to stand aside and wait for the daily number of new COVID-19 cases to reach zero before re-initiating the position. Chart 22TIPS Offer A Ton Of Long-Run Value Extremely Cheap Inflation Protection TIPS Offer A Ton Of Long-Run Value Extremely Cheap Inflation Protection TIPS Offer A Ton Of Long-Run Value Extremely Cheap Inflation Protection   Corporate Bonds Chart 23High Quality Junk High Quality Junk High Quality Junk It is undeniable that the dearth of cashflow caused by the lockdowns will spur a ferocious wave of defaults, particularly in the high-yield sector. It also is not clear that this risk is adequately compensated for. Currently, our US bond strategist believes that spreads are pricing an 11% default rate – in line with the default rate of the 2000/2001 recession. While it is not our base case, a default cycle like 2008, where 14% of companies in the index defaulted is a very clear possibility, as revenues have ground to a halt. However, several positive factors in the junk space must also be considered. Roughly 1% of the high-yield index matures in less than one year, which means that refinancing risk for junk credits should remain relatively subdued (Chart 23, top panel). Moreover, the quality of junk bonds is relatively high compared to previous periods of stress: when the market peaked in 2000 and 2007, Ba-rated credit (the highest quality of high yield) stood at 30% and 37% of the overall index respectively (middle panel). Today this credit quality stands at 49% of the high yield market, indicating a relatively healthier credit profile for junk. Additionally, the high-risk energy sector, which is likely to experience a substantial amount of defaults given the collapse in oil prices, now represents less than 8% of the market capitalization of the whole index (bottom panel). Taking these positive factors into consideration, we believe that a downgrade to underweight is not warranted, and instead we are downgrading high-yield credit from overweight to neutral. What about the investment-grade space? the massive stimulus package announced by the Fed, which effectively allows IG issuers to roll over their entire stock of debt, should provide a backstop to this market. One valid concern is that credit agencies can still downgrade a large number of issuers, making them ineligible to receive support. However, it seems that the credit agencies are aware of how much hinges on their ratings, and are communicating that they will factor the measures taken by various government programs into their credit analysis.5 Thus, considering that spreads are already extended, the Fed is providing unprecedent support and credit agencies are unlikely to knock out many companies out of investment-grade ratings, we are upgrading investment-grade credit from neutral to overweight.   Commodities Chart 24Oil Prices & Politics Do Not Mix Oil Prices & Politics Do Not Mix Oil Prices & Politics Do Not Mix Energy (Overweight): Oil markets were driven by supply/demand dynamics until a third factor, politics, shifted the market equilibrium. The recent clash between Saudi Arabia and Russia led to the breakdown of the OPEC 2.0 coalition and to Brent prices tanking by over 60% to $26 in March. The length of this breakdown is unknown. However, we believe the parties are likely to return to the negotiation table within the next months as the damage to countries which are dependent on oil begins to appear. The fiscal budget breakeven point remains much higher than the current oil price – it is around $83 for Saudi Arabia and $47 for Russia. Weakness in global crude demand will continue to put further downward pressure on prices, until economic activity recovers from the COVID-19 slowdown. Our Commodity & Energy Strategists expect the Brent crude oil price to average $36/bbl, with WTI trading some $3-$4 below that, in 2020 (Chart 24, panels 1 & 2). Industrial Metals (Neutral): Industrial metals prices were on track to pick up until the coronavirus hit global activity at the beginning of the year. Prices face further short-term headwinds as global manufacturing remains suppressed. Once the global social distancing ends and activity resumes, industrial metal prices should pick up as fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending, especially in China, is implemented (panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral):  As the coronavirus spread, global risk assets have tumbled. Over the past 12 months, we have recommended investors increase their allocation to gold as both an inflation hedge and a beneficiary of accommodative monetary policy globally. However, we also recently highlighted that gold was reaching overbought territory and that a pullback was possible in the short-term. Nevertheless, investors should continue to maintain gold exposure to hedge against the eventuality that the pandemic is not contained within the coming weeks (panels 4 & 5).   Currencies Chart 25Competing Forces Pushing The US Dollar In Different Directions Competing Forces Pushing The US Dollar In Different Directions Competing Forces Pushing The US Dollar In Different Directions The USD has gone through a rollercoaster during the coronavirus crisis. Initially, the DXY fell by 4.8%, as rate differentials moved violently against the dollar when the Fed cut rates to zero. But this fall didn’t last long: as liquidity dried up, the cost for dollar funding surged, causing the dollar to skyrocket by almost 8.3%. Since then, the liquidity measures taken by monetary authorities have made the dollar reverse course once more. At this point there are multiple forces pulling the greenback in opposing directions. On the one hand, the collapse in global growth caused by the shutdowns should push the dollar higher. Moreover, momentum – one of the most reliable directional indicators for the dollar – continues to point to further upside (Chart 25, panels 1 and 2). However, the Fed’s generous USD swap lines with other major central banks as well as the massive pool of liquidity deployed have already stabilized funding costs in European and British currency markets, and look poised to do the same in others (Chart 25, panel 3). Thus, since there is no clarity on which force will prevail in this tug of war, we are remaining neutral on the US dollar. That being said, long-term investors can begin to buy some of the most depressed currencies, such as AUD/USD. This cross is currently trading at a 12% discount to PPP according to the OECD – the steepest discount that this currency has had in 17 years. Additionally, our China Investment Strategy projects that China will accelerate infrastructure investment this year to counteract the negative economic effects of the lockdown. This pick up in investment should increase base-metal demand, proving a boost to the Australian dollar in the process.   Alternatives Chart 26Favor Macro Hedge Funds Over Private Equity During Recessions Favor Macro Hedge Funds Over Private Equity During Recessions Favor Macro Hedge Funds Over Private Equity During Recessions Intro: The coronavirus outbreak caused tremendous market volatility and huge declines in liquid assets. Many clients have asked over the past few weeks which illiquid assets make sense in the current environment. To answer that, we stick to our usual recommendation framework, dividing illiquid assets into three buckets: Return Enhancers: Over the past year, we have been recommending clients to pare back private-equity exposure and increase allocation to hedge funds – particularly macro hedge funds, which often outperform other risky alternative assets during economic slowdowns and recessions (Chart 26, panel 1). Private debt – particularly distressed debt – could become a beneficiary of the current environment. The market turmoil will leave some assets heavily discounted, which can provide an opportunity for nimble funds to make investments at attractive valuations. In a previous Special Report, we highlighted Business Development Companies (BDCs) as a liquid alternative to direct private lending.6 They have taken a hit over the past month, even compared to equities and junk bonds. However, their recovery as markets bottom is usually significant (panels 2 & 3). Inflation Hedges: The coordinated “whatever-it-takes” stance implemented by global governments and central banks to mitigate the coronavirus crisis is likely to have inflationary consequences in the long-term. In that environment, investors should favor commodity futures over real estate (panel 4). As global growth reaccelerates in response to stimulus and resumed manufacturing activity over the next 12 months, the USD should weaken, and commodity prices should rise. Volatility Dampeners: Timberland and farmland remain our long-time favorite assets within this bucket. We have previously shown that both assets outperform other traditional and alternative assets during recessions and equity bear markets (panel 5). Farmland particularly should fare well in this environment, being more insulated from the economy, given food’s inelastic demand Risks To Our View Chart 27Dollar Would Fall In A Strong Recovery Dollar Would Fall In A Strong Recovery Dollar Would Fall In A Strong Recovery Since our recommendations are based on a middle course, hedging both upside and downside risks, we need to consider how extreme these two eventualities could be. On the upside, the most optimistic scenario would be one in which the coronavirus largely disappears after April or May. The massive amount of fiscal and monetary stimulus would produce a jet-fuelled rally in risk assets. The dollar has soared over the past few weeks, as a risk-off currency (Chart 27), and would likely fall sharply. This would be very positive for commodities and Emerging Markets assets. The strong cyclical recovery would also help euro zone and Japanese equities relative to the more defensive US. Value stocks and small caps would outperform. Chart 28Could It Get Worse Than 2008 - Or Even 1932? Could It Get Worse Than 2008 - Or Even 1932? Could It Get Worse Than 2008 - Or Even 1932? Downside risks are less easy to forecast. As Warren Buffet wrote in 2002: “you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.” The shock to the system caused by the coronavirus is certainly larger than the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-9 and could approach that caused by the Great Depression (Chart 28), though hopefully without the egregious policy errors of the latter. It is hard, therefore, to know where problems will emerge: US corporate debt, EM borrowers, and euro zone banks would be our most likely candidates. But there could be others. The oil price is another key uncertainty. Demand could collapse by at least 10% as a result of the severe recession. The breakdown of the production agreement between Saudi Arabia and Russia could produce a supply increase of 4-5%.  Given this, Brent crude would fall to $20 a barrel. That would represent a strong tailwind to global recovery (Chart 29). On the other hand, a rapprochement between Saudi and Russia (and even with regulators in Texas) could push oil prices back up again – a positive for markets such as Canada and Mexico. Chart 29Cheap Oil Boosts Growth Cheap Oil Boosts Growth Cheap Oil Boosts Growth   Footnotes 1   Please see BCA Special Report, "Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers," dated 31 March 2020, available at bcaresearch.com 2   https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042291v1 3    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf 4    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Chinese Economic Stimulus: How Much For Infrastructure And The Property Market,” dated 25th March 2020, available at cis.bcaresarch.com 5    A release by Moody’s on March 25 stated that their actions “will be more tempered for higher-rated companies that are likely to benefit from policy intervention or extraordinary government support.” 6    Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Private Debt: An Investment Primer,” dated June 6, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Dear Client, I will be discussing the economic and financial implications of the pandemic with my colleague Caroline Miller this Friday, March 27 at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00 PM GMT, 1:00 PM CET, 8:00 PM HKT). I hope you will be able to join us for this webcast. Next week, we will send you a special report prepared by BCA’s Chief Economist Martin Barnes. Martin will provide his perspective on the current crisis, focusing on some of the longer-run implications. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The world is in the midst of a deep recession. Growth should recover in the third quarter as the measures taken to compensate for the initial slow response to the crisis are relaxed and existing measures are better calibrated to reduce economic distress. Continued monetary support and unprecedented fiscal stimulus should help drive the recovery once businesses reopen and workers return to their jobs. Investors should maintain a modest overweight to global equities. US stocks will lag their foreign peers over the next 12 months. The US dollar has peaked. A weaker dollar should help lift commodity prices and the more cyclical sectors of the stock market. High-yield credit spreads will narrow over the next 12 months, but we prefer investment-grade credit on a risk-reward basis. Investors are understating the potential long-term inflationary consequences of all the stimulus that has been unleashed on the global economy. Buy TIPS and gold. I. Macroeconomic Outlook The global economy is now in recession. The recession has occurred because policymakers saw it as the lesser of two evils. They judged, with good reason, that a temporary shutdown of most non-essential economic activities was a price worth paying to contain the virus. Outside of China, the level of real GDP is likely to be down 1%-to-3% in Q1 of 2020 relative to Q4 of 2019, and down another 5%-to-10% in Q2 relative to Q1. On a sequential annualized basis, this implies that GDP growth could register a negative print of 40% in some countries in the second quarter, a stunning number that has few parallels in history. Growth in China should stage a modest rebound in the second quarter, reflecting the success the country has had in containing the virus. Nevertheless, the level of Chinese economic activity will remain well below its pre-crisis trend, with exports increasingly weighed down by the collapse in overseas spending. A One-Two Punch The “sudden stop” nature of the downturn stems from the fact that the global economy was simultaneously hit by both a massive demand and supply shock. When households are confined to their homes, they cannot spend as much as they normally would. This is particularly the case in an environment of heightened risk aversion, which usually leads to increased precautionary savings. At times like these, businesses also slash spending in a desperate effort to preserve cash. All this reduces aggregate demand. On the supply side, production has been impaired because of workers’ inability to get to their jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 30% of US employees can work from home (Chart 1). Since modern economies rely on an intricate division of labor, disturbances in one part of the economy quickly ripple through to other parts. The global supply chain ceases to function normally. Chart 1US: Who Can Work From Home And Who Cannot? Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Think of this as a Great Depression-style demand shock combined with a category five hurricane supply shock.  The fact that both of these shocks have been concentrated in the service sector, which represents at least two-thirds of GDP in most economies, has made the situation even worse (Chart 2). During most recessions, the service sector is the ballast that helps stabilize the economy in the face of sharp declines in the more cyclical sectors such as manufacturing and housing. This time is different. Chart 2The Service Sector Accounts For A Big Chunk Of GDP And Has Been Very Hard Hit Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V The Shape Of The Recovery: L, U, or V? Provided that the number of new infections around the world stabilizes during the next two months, growth should begin to recover in the third quarter. What will the recovery look like? From the perspective of sequential quarterly growth rates, a V-shaped recovery is inevitable simply because a string of quarters of negative 20%-to-40% growth would quickly leave the world with no GDP at all. However, thinking in terms of growth rates is not the best approach. It is better to think of the level of real GDP. Chart 3 shows three scenarios: 1) An L-shaped profile for real GDP where the level of output falls and then remains permanently depressed relative to its long-term trend; 2) A sluggish U-shaped recovery where output slowly rebounds starting in the second half of the year; and 3) A rapid V-shaped recovery where output quickly moves back to its pre-crisis trend. Chart 3Profile Of The Recovery: L, U, or V? Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V We had previously thought that the recovery from the pandemic would be V-shaped. Compared to the sluggish recovery following the Great Recession, that is likely still true. However, at this point, we would prefer to characterize the probable recovery as being more U-shaped in nature. This is mainly because the measures necessary to contain the virus may end up having to remain in place, in one form or another, for the next few years. Why Not L? Given the likelihood that containment measures will continue to weigh on economic activity, how can an L-shaped “recovery” be avoided? While such a dire outcome cannot be ruled out, there are three reasons to think “U” is more likely than “L”. Reason #1: We Will Learn From Experience It is almost certain that we will figure out how to fine-tune containment measures to reduce the economic burden without increasing the number of lives lost. There are still many questions that remain unanswered. For example: Are restaurants where family members sit together really more dangerous than bars or conferences where strangers are milling about talking to one another? How dangerous is air travel? Modern airplanes have hospital-grade filtration systems that recirculate all the air in the cabin every three minutes. Might this explain why there has only been a handful of flight attendants that have tested positive for the virus? How contagious are children, who often may not present any symptoms at all? Which drugs might slow the spread of the disease or perhaps even cure it? To what extent would widespread mask-wearing help? Yes, a mask may not prevent you from catching the virus, but if there is major social stigma associated with being unmasked in public, then people who have the virus and may not know it will be less of a threat to others. One study estimates that the virus could be completely eradicated if 80% of people always wore masks.1  With time, we will learn the answers to these questions. We will also be able to stockpile masks, ventilators, respirators, and test kits – all of which are currently in short supply – to better combat the virus. Reason #2: We Are NowOvercompensating For Lost Time Second, most countries are currently at the stage where they are trying not just to bring down the basic reproduction number for the virus to 1, but to drive it down to well below 1. There is merit in doing so. If you can reduce the reproduction number to say, 0.5, meaning that 100 people with the virus will pass it on to only 50 other people, then the number of new infections will fall rapidly over time. This is what China was finally able to achieve. A recent study documented that China succeeded in bringing down the reproduction number in Wuhan from 3.86 to 0.32 once all the containment measures had been implemented (Chart 4).2 Chart 4Severe Containment Measures Have Changed The Course Of The Wuhan Outbreak Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V The critical point is that once you reduce the number of new infections to a sufficiently low level, you can then relax the containment measures by just enough so that the reproduction number rises back to 1. At that point, the number of new infections at any given point in time will be constant. One can see this point by imagining a bicycle coasting down a mountain road. Ideally, the rider should apply uniform pressure on the brakes at the outset of the descent to prevent the bicycle from accelerating too quickly. However, if the rider is too slow to apply the brakes and ends up going too fast, he or she will then need to overcompensate by pressing hard on the brakes to slow the bike down before easing off the brakes a bit. Most of the world is currently in the same predicament as the cyclist who failed to squeeze the brakes early on. We are overcompensating to get the infection rate down. However, once the infection rate has fallen by enough, we can ease off the most economically onerous measures, allowing GDP to slowly recover. Reason #3: Containment Measure Will Be Eased As More People Acquire Immunity Much of the popular discussion of the epidemiology of COVID-19 has failed to distinguish between the basic reproduction number, R0, and the effective reproduction number, Re. The former measures the average number of people a carrier of the virus will infect in an entirely susceptible population, whereas the latter measures the average number of people who will be infected after some fraction of the population acquires immunity either by surviving the disease or getting vaccinated. Mathematically, Re = R0*(1-P), where P is the proportion of the population which has acquired immunity. For example, suppose P=0.5, meaning that half the population has acquired immunity. In this case, the average number of people a carrier will infect will be only half as high as when no one has immunity. As we discuss below, there is considerable uncertainty about how fast P will increase over time, including whether it could spike upwards if a vaccine becomes widely available. Still, any increase in P will make it more difficult for the virus to propagate. Over time, this will permit policymakers to raise R0 at an accelerating rate towards the level it would naturally be in the absence of any containment measures (Chart 5). Such a strategy would allow economic activity to increase without raising Re; that is to say, without triggering an explosion in the number of new cases. Chart 5Populations Acquiring Immunity Is Key Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V The Virus Endgame How long will it take to dismantle all the containment measures completely? This partly depends on what medical breakthroughs occur and what measures are needed to “flatten the curve” of new infections (Chart 6). Right now, most countries are trying to drive down the number of new infections to very low levels in the hopes that either a vaccine will be invented or new treatment options will become available. Chart 6Flattening The Curve Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V We are not medical experts and will not offer an opinion on how likely a breakthrough may be. What we would say is that combating the virus has become a modern-day Manhattan project. If the project succeeds, a V-shaped recovery could still ensue. What if the virus evades the best efforts of scientists to eradicate it? In that case, the only way for life to return to some semblance of normalcy is for the population to acquire herd immunity. How many people would need to be infected? In the context of the foregoing discussion, this is equivalent to asking how high P needs to rise for Re to fall below 1. The equation above tells us this must correspond to the value of P for which R0 (1-P) <1. Solving for P yields P > 1-1/R0. In the absence of social distancing and other containment measures, most estimates of R0 for COVID-19 place it between 1.5 and 4. This implies that between one-third (1-1/1.5) to three-quarters (1-1/4) of the population would need to be infected for herd immunity to set in. Even if one allows for the likelihood that significantly more resources will be marshalled to allow hospitals to service a greater number of patients, we estimate that it would take 2-to-3 years to reach that point.3 To be clear, the virus’ ability to spread will decline even before herd immunity is achieved. An increase in the share of the population who survived and became naturally inoculated against the virus would allow policymakers to relax containment measures, perhaps to such an extent that eventually only the simplest of actions such as increased hand-washing and widespread mask-wearing would be enough to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. This underscores our baseline expectation of a U-shaped economic recovery. Second-Round Effects Suppose the global economy starts to recover in the third quarter of this year as the measures taken to compensate for the initial slow response to the crisis are relaxed, existing measures are better calibrated to reduce economic distress, and more younger and healthier people acquire natural immunity to the virus, thus reducing the vulnerability of the old and frail. Does that mean we are out of the woods? Not necessarily! We still have to worry about the second-round economic effects. Even if the virus is contained, there is a risk that the economy will be so scarred by the initial drop in output that it will fail to recover. A vicious circle could emerge where falling spending leads to higher unemployment, leading to even less spending. In the current environment, the tendency for unemployment to rise may be initially mitigated by the decision of a few large companies with ample financial resources to pay their workers even if they are confined to their homes. This would result in a decline in labor productivity rather than higher unemployment. That said, given the severity of the shock and the fact that many of the hardest-hit firms are in the labor-intensive service sector, a sharp rise in joblessness is still inevitable, particularly in countries with flexible labor markets such as the US. Chart 7Worries Over Job Security Abound Worries Over Job Security Abound Worries Over Job Security Abound Today’s spike in US initial unemployment claims is testament to that point (Chart 7). In fact, the true increase in the unemployment rate will probably be greater than what is implied by the claims data because many state websites did not have the bandwidth to handle the slew of applications. In addition, under existing rules, the self-employed and those working in the “gig economy” do not qualify for unemployment benefits (this has been rectified in the bill now making its way to the White House). The Role Of Policy Could we really end up in a world where the virus is contained, and people are ready and able to work, only to find that there are no jobs available? While such a sorry outcome cannot be dismissed, we would bet against it. This outcome would only arise if there is insufficient demand throughout the economy when it reopens. Unlike in 2008/09 when there was a lot of moralizing about how this or that group deserved to be punished for their reckless behavior, no one in their right mind today would argue that the workers losing their jobs and the companies facing bankruptcy somehow had it coming. What can policymakers realistically do? On the monetary side, policy rates are already close to zero in most developed economies. A number of emerging markets still have scope to cut rates, but even there, many find themselves not far from the zero bound (Chart 8). Chart 8DM Rates At The Zero Bound, With EM Rates Approaching DM Rates At The Zero Bound, With EM Approaching DM Rates At The Zero Bound, With EM Approaching Chart 9A Mad Scramble For Cash A Mad Scramble For Cash A Mad Scramble For Cash   That said, cutting interest rates right now is not the only, and probably not the most important, way for central banks to stimulate their economies. The global economy is facing a cash shortage. Companies are tapping credit lines at a time when banks would normally be looking to increase their own cash reserves. The mad scramble for cash has caused libor, repo, and commercial paper spreads to surge (Chart 9). And not just any cash. As the world’s reserve currency, the dollar is increasingly in short supply (Chart 10). This explains why cross-currency basis spreads have soared and why the DXY index has jumped to the highest level in 17 years. Chart 10Dollars Are In Short Supply Dollars Are In Short Supply Dollars Are In Short Supply   Flood The Zone Chart 11US Mortgage Spreads Have Spiked US Mortgage Spreads Have Spiked US Mortgage Spreads Have Spiked The good news is that there is no limit to how many dollars the Federal Reserve can create. The Fed has already expanded the supply of bank reserves by initiating the purchase of $500 billion in treasuries and another $200 billion in agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) since relaunching its QE program on March 15th. Further MBS purchases will be especially useful given that mortgage rates have not come down as quickly as Treasury yields (Chart 11). The Fed has also dusted off the alphabet soup of programs created during the financial crisis to improve proper market functioning, and has even added a few more to the list, including a program to support investment-grade corporate bonds and another to support small businesses. In order to ease overseas funding pressures, the Fed has opened up swap lines with a number of central banks. We expect these lines to be expanded to more countries if the situation necessitates it. The Coming Mar-A-Lago Accord? We also think that there is at least a 50-50 chance that we could see coordinated currency interventions designed to drive down the value of the US dollar. Federal Reserve, Treasury, and IMF guidelines all permit currency intervention to counter “disorderly market conditions.” While a weaker dollar would erode the export competitiveness of some countries, this would be more than offset by the palliative effects of additional dollar liquidity stemming from US purchases of foreign securities, as well as the relief that overseas dollar borrowers would receive from dollar depreciation. Thus, on balance, a weaker dollar would result in an easing of global financial conditions. Liquidity Versus Solvency Risk Some might complain that the actions of the Fed and other central banks go well beyond their mandates. They might argue that it is one thing to provide liquidity to the financial system; it is quite another to socialize credit risk. We think these arguments are largely red herrings. For one thing, concern about credit risk can be addressed by having governments backstop central banks for any losses they incur. Moreover, there is no clear distinction between liquidity and solvency risk during a financial crisis. The former can very easily morph into the latter. For example, consider the case of Italy. Would you buy more Italian bonds if the yield rises? That depends on two competing considerations. On the one hand, a higher yield makes the bond cheaper. On the other hand, a higher yield may make it more difficult for the government to service its debt obligations, which raises the risk of default. If the second consideration outweighs the first, your inclination may be to sell the bond. To the extent that your selling causes yields to rise further, that could lead to another wave of selling. As Chart 12 illustrates, this means that there may be multiple equilibria in fixed-income markets. It is absolutely the job of central banks to try to steer the economy towards the good ”low yield” equilibrium rather than the bad “default” equilibrium. Chart 12Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V In this light, ECB president Christine Lagarde’s statement on March 12th that “we are not here to close spreads” –  coming on the heels of a spike in Italian bond yields and a 13% drop in euro area stocks the prior day – was one of the most negligent things a central banker has ever said. To her credit, she has since walked back her comments. The ECB has also launched the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP), a EUR 750bn asset-purchase program, which gives the central bank considerable flexibility over the timing, composition, and geographic makeup of purchases. Further actions, including upsizing the PEPP, creating a “conditionality-lite” version of the ESM program, and perhaps even issuing Eurobonds, are possible. All this should help Italy. Accordingly, BCA’s global fixed-income team upgraded Italian government bonds to overweight this week. Using Fiscal Policy To Align Financial Time With Economic Time While central banks will play an important role in mitigating the crisis, most of the economic burden will fall on fiscal policy. How much fiscal support is necessary and what should it consist of? To get a sense of what is optimal, it is useful to distinguish between the concept of financial time and economic time. Financial time and economic time usually beat at the same pace. Most of the time, people have financial obligations – rent, mortgage payments, spending on necessities – that they match with the income earned from work. Likewise, companies have expenses that they match with the revenue that they derive from various economic activities.  No one worries when economic time and financial time deviate in predictable ways. For example, GDP collapses around 5pm on Monday only to recover at 9am on Tuesday. The fact that many western Europeans take most of August off for vacation is also not a problem, since everyone expects this. The problem occurs when economic time and financial time deviate in unpredictable ways. That is the case at present. Today, economic time has ground to a halt as businesses shutter their doors and workers confine themselves to their homes. Yet, financial time continues to march on. This implies that in the near term, the correct course of action is for governments to transfer money to households and firms to allow them to service their financial obligations. One simple way of achieving this is through wage subsidies, where the government pays companies most of the wage bill of their employees who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work. Note that this strategy does not boost GDP. By definition, an idle worker is one who does not contribute to economic output. What this strategy does do is alleviate needless hardship, while creating pent-up demand for when businesses start to open their doors again. Once the virus is contained, traditional fiscal stimulus that boosts aggregate demand will be appropriate. How much money are we talking about? In the case of the US, suppose that annualized growth is -5% in Q1, -25% in Q2, and +10% in Q3 and Q4, respectively. That would leave the level of real GDP down 4% on the year compared to 2019. Assuming trend GDP growth of 2%, that implies an annual shortfall of income (consisting of wages and lost profits) that the government would have to cover amounting to 6% of GDP. The $2 trillion stimulus bill amounts to 10% of GDP, although not all of that will be spent during the next 12 months and about a quarter of the amount is in the form of loans and loan guarantees. Still, on size, we would give it an “A”. On composition, we would give it a “B”, as it lacks sufficient funding for state and local governments to cover the likely decline in the tax revenues that they will experience. This could result in layoffs of first responders, teachers, etc. Given that the US was running a fiscal deficit going into the crisis, all this additional stimulus could easily push the budget deficit to over 15% of GDP. While this is a huge number, keep in mind that in a world where interest rates are below the trend growth rate of the economy, a government can permanently increase its budget deficit by any amount it wants while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over the long haul.4 Today, we are not even talking about a permanent increase in the deficit, but a temporary increase that could last a few years at most. If we end up in a depression, don’t blame the virus; blame politicians. Fortunately, given that the political incentives are aligned towards fiscal easing rather than austerity, our guess is that a depression will be averted. Appendix A summarizes the monetary and fiscal measures that have already been taken in the major economies. II. Investment Strategy As anyone who has ever watched a horror movie knows, the scariest part of the film is the one before the monster is revealed to the audience. No matter how good the makeup or set design, our imaginations can always conjure up something much more frightening than Hollywood can invent. Right now, we are fighting an invisible enemy that is ravaging the world. Victory is in sight. The number of new infections has peaked in China and South Korea. I mentioned during last week’s webcast that we should watch Italy very carefully. If the number of new infections peaks there, that would send an encouraging signal to financial markets that other western democracies will be able to get the virus under control. While it is too early to be certain, this may be happening: Both the number of new cases and deaths in Italy have stabilized over the past five days (Chart 13). Chart 13A Peak In The Number Of New COVID-19 Cases In Italy Would Send An Encouraging Signal Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Of course, there is still the risk that the number of new infections will rise again if containment measures are relaxed prematurely. However, as we spelled out in this report, there are good reasons to think that these measures will not need to be as severe as the ones currently in place. As such, it is likely that global growth will begin to rebound in the third quarter of this year. Equities: A Modest Overweight Is Warranted We turned more cautious on the near-term outlook for global equities earlier this year, but upgraded our recommendation on the morning of February 28th after the MSCI All-Country World Index fell by 12% over the prior week. While stocks did rally by 7% during the following three trading days, they subsequently plunged to multi-year lows. In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to our own warnings in our earlier report titled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.” 5 For now, we would recommend a modest overweight to stocks on both a 3-month and 12-month horizon. Monetary and fiscal easing and the prospect of a peak in the number of new cases in Italy could continue to support stocks in the near term, while a rebound in growth starting this summer should pave the way for a recovery in corporate earnings over a 12-month horizon. Chart 14US Equity Valuations Are Not Yet At Bombed-Out Levels US Equity Valuations Are Not Yet At Bombed-Out Levels US Equity Valuations Are Not Yet At Bombed-Out Levels Of course, when it comes to financial markets, one should always be prepared to adjust one’s conviction level if prices either rise or fall significantly. We mentioned two weeks ago that we would move to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 fell below 2250. While the index did briefly fall below this level, it has since bounced back to about 2630. At its current level, the S&P 500 is trading at 15.3-times forward earnings (Chart 14). While this is not particularly expensive, it is still well above the trough of 10.5-times forward earnings reached in 2011 during the height of the euro crisis. And keep in mind that current earnings estimates are based on the stale assumption that S&P 500 companies will earn $172 over the next four quarters, down only 3% from the peak earnings estimate of $177 reached in February. With this in mind, we are introducing a lower and upper bound for global equity prices at which we will adjust our view. To keep things simple, we will focus on the S&P 500, which accounts for over half of global stock market capitalization. If the S&P 500 falls below (and stays below) 2250, we would recommend a high-conviction overweight to global stocks. If the index rises above 2750, we would recommend a neutral equity allocation. Anything between 2250 and 2750 would justify the current stance of modest overweight. Going forward, we will adjust this range as events warrant it. Our full slate of views can be found in the table at the end of this report. Sector And Regional Equity Allocation: Favor Cyclicals and Non-US Over A 12-Month Horizon Not surprisingly, defensive equity sectors outperformed cyclicals both in the US and abroad during this month’s selloff. Financials also underperformed on heightened worries about rising defaults and the adverse effect on net interest margins from flatter yield curves (Chart 15). Chart 15Cyclicals And Financials Underperformed On The Way Down Cyclicals And Financials Underperformed On The Way Down Cyclicals And Financials Underperformed On The Way Down Chart 16Non-US Stocks Are Cheaper Even After Adjusting For Differences In Sector Weights Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V   Cyclicals and financials have outperformed the broader market over the past few days as risk sentiment has improved. They are likely to continue outperforming over a 12-month horizon as global growth eventually recovers and yield curves steepen modestly. To the extent that cyclicals and financials are overrepresented in stock market indices outside the US, this will give non-US equities the edge. Stocks outside the US also benefit from more favorable valuations. Even after adjusting for differences in sector weights, non-US stocks are quite a bit cheaper than their US peers as judged by price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and other valuation measures (Chart 16). The US Dollar Has Probably Peaked Another factor that should help cyclical stocks later this year is the direction of the US dollar. The greenback has been buffeted by two major forces this year (Chart 17). Chart 17The Dollar Has Been Facing Crosscurrents The Dollar Has Been Facing Crosscurrents The Dollar Has Been Facing Crosscurrents Chart 18USD Is A Countercyclical Currency USD Is A Countercyclical Currency USD Is A Countercyclical Currency   Between February 19 and March 9, the dollar weakened as US bond yields fell more than yields abroad. This eliminated some of the yield advantage that had been supporting the dollar last year. Starting around the second week of March, however, global financial stresses escalated. Money began to flow into the safe-haven Treasury market. Global growth prospects also deteriorated sharply. As a countercyclical currency, this helped the dollar (Chart 18). Looking out, interest rate differentials are unlikely to return anywhere close to where they were at the start of this year, given that the Fed will probably keep rates near zero at least until the middle of 2021. Meanwhile, aggressive central bank liquidity injections should reduce financial stress, while a rebound in global growth will allow capital to start flowing back towards riskier foreign markets. This should result in a weaker dollar. Once Growth Bottoms, So Will Commodities Chart 19Low Prices Force US Shale Cutbacks Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V The combination of a weaker dollar, a rebound in global growth starting this summer, and increased infrastructure stimulus spending in China should help lift resource prices. This will also buoy currencies such as the AUD, CAD, and NOK in the developed market space, and RUB, CLP, ZAR, and IDR, in the EM space. Oil prices have tumbled on the back of the sudden stop in global economic activity and the breakdown of the agreement between OPEC and Russia to restrain crude production. BCA’s commodity strategists expect the Saudis and Russians to come to an agreement to reduce output, as neither side has an incentive to pursue a prolonged price war. They see Brent prices averaging $36/barrel in 2020 and $55/barrel in 2021. However, prices are not likely to go much higher than $60/barrel because that would take them well above the current breakeven cost for shale producers, eliciting a strong supply response (Chart 19). Spread Product: Favor IG Over HY A rebound in oil prices from today’s ultra-depressed levels should help the bonds of energy companies, which are overrepresented in high-yield indices. This, together with stronger global growth and improving risk sentiment, should allow HY spreads to narrow over a 12-month horizon. Chart 20High-Yield Credit Is Pricing In Only A Moderate Recession High-Yield Credit Is Pricing In Only A Moderate Recession High-Yield Credit Is Pricing In Only A Moderate Recession Nevertheless, we think investment grade currently offers a better risk-reward profile. While HY spreads have jumped to more than 1000 basis points in the US, they are still nowhere close to 2008 peak levels of almost 2000 basis points. Like the equity market, high-yield credit is pricing in only a modest recession, with a default rate on par with the 2001 downturn (Chart 20). Moreover, central banks around the world are racing to protect high-quality borrowers from default. The Fed’s announcement that it will effectively backstop the investment-grade corporate bond market could be a game changer in this regard. Unfortunately for HY credit, the moral hazard consequences of bailing out companies that investors knew were risky when they first bought the bonds are too great for policymakers to bear. Government Bonds: Deflation Today, Inflation Tomorrow? As noted at the outset of this report, the current economic downturn involves both an adverse supply and demand shock. Outside of a few categories of consumer staples and medical products, we expect demand to fall more than supply, resulting in downward pressure on prices. This deflationary impulse will be exacerbated by rising unemployment. Looking beyond the next 12-to-18 months, the outlook for inflation is less clear. On the one hand, it is possible that the psychological trauma from the pandemic will produce a permanent, or at least semi-permanent, increase in precautionary savings. If budget deficits are reined in too quickly, many countries could find themselves facing a shortage of aggregate demand. This would be deflationary. On the other hand, one can easily envision a scenario where monetary policy remains highly accommodative and many of the fiscal measures put in place to support households are maintained long after the virus is eradicated. This could be particularly true in the US, where our geopolitical team now expects Joe Biden to win the presidential election. In such an environment, unemployment could fall back to its lows, eventually leading to an overheated economy. Our hunch is that the more inflationary scenario will unfold over the next 2-to-3 years. Interestingly, that is not the market’s opinion. For example, the 5-year US TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently only 0.69% and the 10-year rate is 1.07%. This means that a buy-and-hold investor will make money owning TIPS versus nominals if inflation averages more than 0.69% per year for the next five years, or 1.07% per year for the next decade. That is a bet we would be willing to take. Finally, a word on gold. Just as during the Global Financial Crisis, gold failed to be an attractive hedge against financial risk during the recent stock market selloff – bullion dropped by 15% from $1704/oz to $1451/oz, before rebounding back to $1640/oz over the past few days as risk sentiment improved. Nevertheless, gold remains a good hedge against long-term inflation risk. And with the US dollar likely to weaken over the next 12 months, gold prices should move up even if near-term inflationary pressures remain contained. As such, we are upgrading our outlook on the yellow metal. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Appendix A Appendix A Table 1Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Appendix A Table 2Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Footnotes 1  Jing Yan, Suvajyoti Guha, Prasanna Hariharan, and Matthew Myers, “Modeling the Effectiveness of Respiratory Protective Devices in Reducing Influenza Outbreak,” U.S. National Library of Medicine, (39:3), March 2019. 2  Chaolong Wang, Li Liu, Xingjie Hao, Huan Guo, Qi Wang, Jiao Huang, Na He, Hongjie Yu, Xihong Lin, Sheng Wei, and Tangchun Wu, “Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,”medrxiv.org, March 6, 2020. 3  This calculation assumes that 5% of infected people need ICU care and each spends an average of 2 weeks in the ICU. It also assumes that hospitals are able to expand their capacity by 30 additional ICU beds per 100,000 people per year to treat COVID-19. 4  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019, available at gis.bcarearch.com. 5  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” dated February 21, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the real neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even once economic recovery takes hold unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). This report revisits the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrates why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. We also outline an inferential approach that investors can use to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. The core conclusion for investors is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, investors should avoid dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about yields as they may rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. Feature Over the past several weeks financial markets have moved rapidly to price in a global recession stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. As financial market participants began to turn to policy makers for support, eyes focused first on the Federal Reserve, and then fiscal authorities. Earlier this week, the ECB joined the party and announced aggressive further measures of its own. When responding to the Fed’s return to the lower bound and its other recent monetary policy decisions, many market participants have expressed the view that the Fed is largely impotent to deal with a global pandemic. There are three elements to this view. The first is that interest rate cuts are ill equipped to stimulate domestic demand if quarantine measures or other forms of “social distancing” are in effect. The second element is that the Fed has only been capable of delivering a fraction of the reduction in interest rates compared to what has occurred in response to previous contractions. The third aspect of this view is that because the neutral rate of interest is so much lower now than it was in the past, Fed rate cuts will not be as stimulative as they were before. Chart II-1Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate While we at least partly agree with the first and second elements of this view, we feel strongly that the third is flawed. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013,1 and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. This time series, which is regularly updated by the New York Fed,2 suggests that the real fed funds rate reached neutral territory in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart II-1). With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even beyond the near term unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). In this Special Report we revisit the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrate why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. Our analysis does not reveal a precise alternative estimate of the neutral rate, although we do provide some inferential perspective on how investors may be able to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. However, the core insight emanating from our report, particularly for US fixed income investors, is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once economic activity recovers. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise may be larger than many investors currently expect. Demystifying The LW R-star Estimate The LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest has gained credibility for three reasons. First, as noted above, the evolution of the series fits with the secular stagnation narrative re-popularized by Larry Summers. Second, the series is essentially sponsored by the Federal Reserve even if it is not officially part of the Fed’s forecasting framework, as its two creators are long-time Fed employees (Thomas Laubach is a director of the Fed’s Board of Governors, and John Williams is the current President of the New York Fed). But, in our view, there is a third important reason that global investors have accepted the LW R-star estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the methodology used to generate the estimate is extremely technically complex, and thus is difficult for most investors to penetrate. Much of the technical complexity of the LW estimate is centered around the use of a statistical procedure called a Kalman filter (“KF”). Simply described, the KF is an algorithm that tries to estimate an unobservable variable based on 1) an idea of how the unobservable variable might relate to an observable variable (the “measurement equation”), and 2) an idea of how the unobservable variable might change through time (the “transition equation”). Through a repeated process of simulating the unobserved variable based on a set of assumptions, the KF is able to compare predicted results to actual results on an observation-by-observation basis, and use that information to generate ever more reliable future estimates of the unobserved variable (Chart II-2). Chart II-2A Very Simplified Overview Of The Kalman Filter Algorithm April 2020 April 2020 We acknowledge that a full technical treatment of the Kalman Filter as it relates to the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest is beyond the scope of this report, and we provide a more technical overview in Box II-1. But what emerges from a detailed analysis of the model is that the Kalman Filter jointly estimates R-star, potential GDP growth, potential GDP, and the variable “z”, the determinants of R-star that are not explained by potential GDP growth. As we will highlight in the next section, this joint estimation of these four variables is a crucial aspect of the model, because a valid estimate of R-star necessitates a valid estimate of the remaining variables. BOX II-1 A Technical Overview Of The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Chart Box II-1 shows that there are three sets of formulas involved in the LW estimation: the “law of motion” for the neutral rate of interest, two measurement equations, and three transition equations. The law of motion for the neutral rate is fairly simple: R-star is a function of trend real GDP growth, as well as “other factors” represented by the variable “z”. Laubach & Williams note that z “captures factors such as households’ rate of time preference”. The measurement equations are also fairly straightforward. First, the (unobservable) output gap is a function of lagged values of itself as well as the lagged real Fed funds rate gap (relative to the unobservable neutral rate). Second, inflation is a function of lagged values of itself, past values of the output gap, relative core import prices, and lagged relative imported oil prices (the latter two variables are included to capture potential supply shocks to inflation). Note that this second measurement equation is required for the model to work, as it relates the unobservable output gap to observable inflation. As presented in Chart II-2, the three transition equations are present to simulate how the unobservable variables might move through time. Potential growth and potential output are a random walk, and “z” from the law of motion follows either a random walk or an autoregressive process. Chart Box II-1The Laubach & Williams R-star Model April 2020 April 2020 Debunking The LW R-star Estimate Before criticizing the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest, it is important for us to note that we have the utmost respect for the Federal Reserve and its research methods. We fully acknowledge that the LW R-star estimation is rooted in solid economic theory, and we have identified no technical errors in the setup of the LW model. Nevertheless, valid analytical efforts sometimes lead to problematic real-world results, and there are two key reasons to believe that the Kalman filter in the LW model is almost certainly misspecifying R-star, at least in terms of its estimate over the past two decades. The first reason relates to the sensitivity of the model to the interval of estimation (the period over which R-star is estimated). Chart II-3 presents the range of quarterly estimates of R-star since 2005, along with the difference between the high and low end of the range in the second panel. The chart shows that while previous estimates of R-star have generally been stable for values ranging between the early-1980s and 2006/2007, pre-1980 estimates have varied quite substantially and we have seen material revisions to the estimates over the past decade. Q1 2018 serves as an excellent example: in that quarter R-star was estimated to be 0.14%; today, the Q1 2018 R-star estimate sits at 0.92%. Chart II-3Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates However, Table II-1 and Chart II-4 highlight the real instability of the Kalman filter estimation by demonstrating the effect of varying the starting point of the model (please see Box II-2 for a brief description of how our estimation of R-star using the LW approach differs slightly from the original procedure). Laubach & Williams originally estimated R-star beginning in Q1 1961; Table II-1 shows what happens to today’s estimate of R-star simply by incrementally varying the starting point of the model from Q1 1958 to Q4 1979. Table II-1Alternative Current LW Estimates Of R-star By Model Starting Point April 2020 April 2020 Chart II-4Alternative Starting Points Produce Wildly Different Estimates Of R-star Today April 2020 April 2020 BOX II-2 The Laubach & Williams R-star Model With Simplified Inflation Expectations To proxy inflation expectations in their model, Laubach & Williams use a “forecast of the four-quarter-ahead percentage change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy (“core PCE prices”) generated from a univariate AR(3) of inflation estimated over the prior 40 quarters”. The authors note that a simplified measure of expectations, a 4-quarter moving average of quarterly annualized core inflation, does not materially alter their results. For the sake of parsimony we use this simplified measure in our analysis. We find that the effect shifts the current estimate of R-star only slightly (+10 basis points), and that the historical differences between our version of the 1961 estimation and the official series are indeed minor. The table highlights that the model fails to even generate a result in a majority of the cases (only 39 out of 88 of the model runs were error-free). In addition, Chart II-4 shows that of the successful estimates of R-star using the LW procedure and alternate starting dates of the model, the estimate of R-star today varies from -2% (in one case) to +2%. Excluding the one extremely negative outlier results in an effective estimate range of 0% to 2%, but the key point for investors is that this range is massive and underscores that the original model’s estimate of R-star today is heavily and unduly influenced by the interval of estimation. Investors should also note that of all of the alternative estimates of R-star today shown in Chart II-4, the estimate using the original interval is very much on the low end of the distribution. The second (and most important) reason to believe that the LW estimate is misspecifying R-star is that the output gap estimate generated by the model is almost certainly invalid, at least over the past two decades. Chart II-5presents the LW output gap estimate alongside an average of the CBO, OECD, and IMF estimates of the gap; panel 1 shows the official current LW output gap estimate, whereas panel 2 shows the range of output gap estimates that are generated using the different estimation intervals highlighted in Table II-1 and Chart II-4. Chart II-5The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades Given that the Kalman filter in the LW model jointly determines R-star and the output gap (by way of estimating potential output via estimating potential GDP growth) and that these estimates are dependent on each other, Chart II-5 highlights that in order to believe the LW R-star estimate investors must believe three things: That the US economy was chronically below potential in the late-1990s when the unemployment rate was below 5%, real GDP growth averaged nearly 5%, and the equity market was booming, That output exceeded potential in 2004/2005 by a magnitude not seen since the late-1970s / early-1980s despite an average unemployment rate, That the 2008/2009 US recession was not particularly noteworthy in terms of its deviation from potential output, and that the economy had returned to potential output by 2010/2011 when the unemployment rate was in the range of 8-9%. Chart II-6The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 While we do not believe any of these three statements, the third is especially unlikely. Chart II-6 highlights that the economic expansion from 2009 – 2020 was the weakest on record in the post-war era in terms of average annual real per capita GDP growth. To us, this is a clear symptom of a chronic deficiency in aggregate demand, and that it is essentially unreasonable to argue that the economy was operating at full employment prior to 2014/2015. This means that the Kalman filter is generating incorrect and unreliable estimates of the output gap, which means in turn that the filter’s estimation of R-star is almost assuredly wrong. How Can Investors Tell What The Neutral Rate Is? An Inferential Approach Table II-2 presents the sensitivity of the original Q1 1961 LW estimate of R-star to a series of counterfactual scenarios for inflation, real GDP growth, nominal interest rates, and import and oil prices since mid-2009. While these scenarios do not in any way improve the validity of the LW R-star estimate, they do help clarify the theoretical basis of the model and they help reveal how investors may infer whether the neutral rate of interest is higher or lower than prevailing market rates, and whether it is rising or falling. Table II-2Sensitivity Of Current LW R-star Estimate To Counterfactual Scenarios (2009 - Present) April 2020 April 2020 Chart II-7Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Table II-2 highlights that today’s estimate of R-star using the original LW approach is mostly sensitive to our counterfactual scenarios for growth and interest rates, but not inflation or oil prices. Shifting down import price growth also has a meaningful effect on R-star, but since core import price growth has been particularly weak over the past several years (Chart II-7), it seems unreasonable to suggest that they have been abnormally high and thus “explain” a low R-star estimate today. Table II-2 essentially highlights that the entire question of the neutral rate of interest over the past decade, and the core contradiction that led to the re-emergence of the secular stagnation thesis, can effectively be boiled down to the following simple question: “Why hasn’t US economic growth been stronger this cycle, given that interest rates have been so low?” Based on the (hopefully uncontroversial) view that interest rates influence economic activity and that economic activity influences inflation, we propose the following checklist for investors to ask themselves in order to not only determine the answer to this important question, but to help identify whether R-star in any given country is likely higher or lower than existing policy rates at any given point in time. Are interest rates above or below the prevailing level of economic growth? Are interest rates rising or falling, and how intensely? Are there identifiable non-monetary shocks (positive or negative) that appear to be influencing economic activity? Is private sector credit growth keeping pace with economic growth? Are debt service burdens in the economy high or low? The first question reflects the most basic view of R-star, which is that the real neutral rate of interest should be equal to, or at least closely related to, the potential growth rate of the economy, ceteris paribus. Questions 2 through 5 attempt to determine whether ceteris paribus holds. In terms of how the answers to these questions relate to identifying the neutral rate, consider two economies, “Economy A” and “Economy B” (Chart II-8). Economy A has broadly stable or slightly rising interest rates that are well below prevailing rates of economic growth (questions 1 & 2), no obvious beneficial shocks to domestic demand from fiscal policy or other factors (question 3), and strong private sector credit growth that is perhaps above or strongly above the current pace of GDP growth (question 4). Chart II-8'Economy A', Versus 'Economy B' April 2020 April 2020 Inferentially, it would seem that interest rates in this hypothetical economy are below R-star today. Question 5 is in our list because the more that active private sector leveraging occurs (thus pushing up debt burdens), the more that we would expect R-star in the future to fall. This is because debt payments as a share of income cannot rise forever, and we would expect that the capacity of economy A’s central bank to raise interest rates in the future are negatively related to economy A’s private sector debt service burden today. Now, imagine another economy (“Economy B”) with interest rates well below average rates of economic growth, an interest rate trend that is flat-to-down, no identifiable non-monetary policy shocks that are restricting aggregate demand, persistently sluggish credit growth, and high private sector debt service burdens in the past. If economy B is growing (even sluggishly) and not in the middle of a recession, it would seem that prevailing interest rates are below R-star, but not significantly so. In this scenario it would seem reasonable to conclude that R-star in economy B has fallen non-trivially below its potential growth rate, and that interest rate increases are likely to move monetary policy into restrictive territory earlier than otherwise would be the case. Is The United States “Economy B”? From the perspective of some investors, our description of economy B above perfectly captures the experience of the US over the past decade: an extremely low Fed funds rate, sluggish to weak growth and inflation, all the result of a huge build-up in leverage and debt service burdens during the last economic cycle. We do not doubt that R-star fell in the US for some period of time during the global financial crisis and in the early phase of the economic recovery. But we doubt that it is as low today as the secular stagnation narrative would imply, in large part because it ignores several important aspects concerning questions 2 through 5 noted above. Chart II-9Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies: Over the past 12 years, there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnect between growth and interest rates: 1) a prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014, 2) the euro area sovereign debt crisis, 3) fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 (Chart II-9), 4) the US dollar / oil price shock of 2014, and 5) the recent trade war between the US and China. Several of these shocks have been policy-driven, and in the case of austerity the negative consequences of that policy has led to a lasting change in thinking among fiscal authorities (outside of Japan) that is unlikely to reverse in the near-future. Chart II-10Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Private sector credit growth: Chart II-10 highlights the extent of household deleveraging noted above by showing the growth in total household liabilities over the past decade alongside income growth. Panel 2 shows the leveraging trend of firms, as represented by the nonfinancial corporate sector debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart II-10 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it is now growing again and has largely closed the gap with income growth. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector has clearly leveraged itself over the course of the expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. While it is true that firms have largely leveraged themselves to buy back stock instead of significantly increasing capital expenditures, in our view this reflects the fact that US consumer demand was impaired for several years due to deleveraging. We doubt that firms would have altered their capital structures to this degree if they did not view interest rates as extremely low. Debt service burdens: Chart II-11 highlights that US household debt service burdens were at very elevated levels prior to the financial crisis, suggesting that the neutral rate did fall for some time following the recession. But today, the debt burden facing households is the lowest it has been in the past 40 years due to both rate reductions and deleveraging, arguing against the view that household debt levels will structurally weigh on interest rates in the years to come. Chart II-12 shows that the picture is different for nonfinancial corporations, as the substantial leveraging noted above has indeed raised debt service burdens for firms. However, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio remains 400 basis points below early-2000 levels when excess corporate sector liabilities had a clear impact on the economy, suggesting that the Fed’s capacity to raise interest rates still exists following the onset of economic recovery if corporate sector credit growth does not rise sharply relative to GDP over the coming 6-12 months. Chart II-11The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low Chart II-12Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise   The intensity of recent interest rate changes: Finally, many investors have pointed to sluggish housing activity over the past three years as evidence of a low neutral rate. However, Chart II-13 highlights that the rise in the 30-year US mortgage rate from late-2016 to late-2018 was one of the largest two-year changes in US history, and Chart II-14 shows that the growth in household mortgage credit did not fall below its trend during this period until Q4 2018, when the US stock market fell 20% from its high in response to the economic consequences of the US/China trade war. Chart II-14 also shows that mortgage credit growth responded sharply to a recent reduction in interest rates. All in all, Charts II-13 & II-14 cast doubt on the notion that the level of mortgage rates over the past three years reached restrictive territory. Chart II-13Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Chart II-14A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market   Investment Conclusions In the face of a global pandemic and an attendant global recession this year, the idea of eventual Fed rate hikes and the notion that the US economy will be able to tolerate them likely seems preposterous to many investors. We agree that over the coming 6-12 months US Treasury yields are unlikely to rise; even at current levels of the 10-year Treasury yield, we are reluctant to call a trough. Chart II-15US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade However, Chart II-15highlights that over a long-term time horizon, the bond market is now essentially priced for a repeat of the ten-year path of the Fed funds rate following the global financial crisis. While some investors will view this as a reasonable expectation in the face of what they see as a persistent and unexplainable gap between growth and interest rates over the past decade, we think this gap is explainable and we highly doubt that a pandemic with minimal mortality risk to the working age population and the young will cause the US economy to be afflicted with active consumer deleveraging lasting 4 to 6-years, substantial and wide-ranging fiscal austerity, persistently rising trade tariffs, and sharply lower oil prices. So while we agree that the US economy will be substantially cyclically affected by COVID-19, US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise following the upcoming recession may be larger than many investors currently believe.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  "IMF Fourteenth Annual Research Conference in Honor of Stanley Fischer," Washington DC, November 8, 2013. 2  "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Highlights The global economy is in the midst of a painful recession. Monetary and fiscal authorities are responding forcefully to the crisis, but the lengths of the lockouts and quarantines remain a major source of downside risk to the economy. Investors should favor stocks over bonds during the next year. The short-term outlook remains fraught with danger, so avoid aggressive bets. Central banks can tackle the global liquidity crunch, thus spreads will narrow and the dollar will weaken. The long-term impact of COVID-19 will be inflationary. Feature “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”    Franklin Delano Roosevelt  1932 A violent global recession is underway. Last month, we wrote that a deep economic slump would be unavoidable if COVID-19 cases could not be controlled within two to three weeks.1 Since then, the number of new, recorded COVID-19 cases has mounted every day and fear prevails. Consumers are not spending; firms will face a cash crunch and/or bankruptcy, and employment will be slashed. The next few quarters could result in some of the worst GDP prints since the Great Depression. Risk assets have moved to discount this dire scenario. The global stock-to-bond ratio has collapsed by 47% since its peak on January 17th and stands at the 1st decile of it post-1980 distribution. 10-year US bond yields temporarily fell below 0.4%. The dollar has rallied against every currency and even gold traded below $1500 an ounce. Brent crude trades below $30/bbl. In this context, investors must assess if risk asset prices have declined enough to compensate for the economic hazards created by the COVID-19 pandemic. If the massive amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus announced can turn around the economy in the second half of the year, then stocks and risk assets are attractive. Otherwise, they are still not cheap enough and cash remains king. We think it is a good time to begin to parsimoniously deploy capital into risk assets. A Global Recession And An Extraordinary Response The global economy has suffered its worst shock since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), but policymakers are deploying every tool available. In our base case, GDP will contract more quickly for two quarters than it did during the GFC, and then will recover smartly. It is hard to pinpoint exactly how quickly global GDP will contract in the next six months, but key indicators point to a grim outcome. Chart I-1Global Growth Is Plunging Global Growth Is Plunging Global Growth Is Plunging China’s economy was at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic and its trajectory provides a glimpse into what the rest of the world should anticipate. In February, Chinese retail sales contracted by 20.5% annually and industrial production plunged by 13.5%. The German ZEW survey for March paints an equally bleak picture. The growth expectations component for the Eurozone and Germany fell to its lowest level since the GFC. The same indicator, but computed as an average of US, European and Asian subcomponents is also collapsing at an alarming pace (Chart I-1). The European flash PMI for March also points to a deep slowdown, with the services PMI plunging to 28.4, an all-time low. The performance of EM carry trades flashes a somber warning for our Global Industrial Production Nowcast (Chart I-2). Carry trade returns are imploding because global liquidity is incapable of meeting the demand for precautionary money by economic agents. This lack of liquidity is inflicting enormous damage on worldwide growth. Live trackers for US and global economic activity are also melting down. Traffic in some of the US’s largest cities is a fraction of last year's (Chart I-3). Globally, restaurant bookings have dried up and fewer airlines are flying compared to 2008. Initial jobless claims in the US have surged to 3.28 million, rapidly and decisively overtaking the weaknesses seen during the GFC. Chart I-2The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen Chart I-3Live Trackers Are In Free Fall April 2020 April 2020   Despite the dismal situation, some positive developments are emerging. It has been demonstrated that quarantines contain the spread of the virus. On March 18th, Wuhan recorded no new COVID-19 cases. Moreover, 10 days after its January 24th quarantine began, new cases started to fall off quickly (Chart I-4) in the city. If the recent softening in new cases in Italy’s Lombardy region continues, it will illustrate that democratic regimes can also reduce the pace of infection. Chart I-4Quarantines Do Work April 2020 April 2020 Most importantly, policymakers around the world have shown their willingness to do “whatever it takes.” Governments are easing fiscal policy with abandon. Germany’s state bank KfW is setting aside EUR550 billion to support the economy. France will spend EUR45 billion and has earmarked EUR300 billion in small business loan guarantees. Spain announced EUR200 billion to protect domestic activity. The White House just passed a stimulus package of $2 trillion, and Canada follows suit with a CAD82 billion relief bill. (Table I-1). As A. Walter and J. Chwieroth showed, the growing financial wealth of the middle class is forcing governments to always provide large bailouts after financial crises and recessions. Otherwise, their political parties suffer extreme repudiation from power.2 Table I-1Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic April 2020 April 2020 Central bankers have also become extreme reflators. Nearly every central bank in advanced economies has cut interest rates to zero or into negative territory. Most importantly, central banks have become lenders of last resort. The US Federal Reserve has announced it will engage in unlimited asset purchases; it has reopened various facilities to provide liquidity to the market and is using the US Department of the Treasury to lend directly to the private sector. Among its many measures, the European Central Bank is scrapping artificial limits on its bond purchases that were its capital keys and has offered a EUR750 billion bond purchase program. The ECB is also looking to open its OMT program. Other central banks are injecting cash directly into their domestic markets (Table I-2). The list and size of actions will expand until the markets are satiated with enough liquidity. Table I-2The Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit April 2020 April 2020 The impact of these policy measures is threefold. First, the actions are designed to alleviate the global economy’s cash crunch. Secondly, they aim to support growth directly. The private sector needs direct backing to survive the lack of cash inflows that will develop in the coming weeks. If fiscal and monetary authorities can plug that hole, then spending will not have to collapse as deeply nor for as long as would otherwise be the case. Finally, it is imperative that policymakers boost confidence and ease financial conditions to allow “animal spirits” to stabilize. If risk-taking continues to tailspin, then spending will never recover and the demand for cash will only grow, creating the worst liquidity trap since the Great Depression. Policymakers around the world have shown their willingness to do “whatever it takes.” The economy will continue to weaken in the second half of 2020 if quarantines remain in place beyond the summer. Not being epidemiologists, we are not equipped to make this call with any degree of certainty. Much depends on the evolution of the disease and the political decisions taken. We do not yet know if the population will be willing to endure the economic pain of a depression, or if political pressures will rise to force isolation on those over age 60 and those suffering dangerous comorbidities who are at higher risk, and allow everyone else to return to work and school.3 Investment Implications Part 1: Bonds and Stocks Chart I-5The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated While the short-term outlook remains murky for asset markets, investors with a 12-month or longer investment horizon should begin to move capital into equities at the expense of bonds. Beyond the relative technical and valuation backdrops (Chart I-5), the outlook for fiscal and monetary policy favors this allocation decision. US Treasury yields have dropped from 1.9% at the turn of the year to as low as 0.31% on March 9th. According to the bond market, inflation will average less than 1% during the coming 10 years. The OIS curve is pricing in a fed funds rate of only 68 basis points in five years. In response to this extreme pricing, Treasury bonds are exceptionally expensive (Chart I-6). Moreover, using BCA Research’s Golden Rule of Treasury Investing, there is little scope for yields to fall any lower. The Golden Rule states that the return of Treasury bonds is directly linked to the Fed's rate surprises. If over the next year the Fed cuts interest rates more than is currently priced into the OIS curve, then bond yields will fall in the next 12 months (Chart I-7). Given that the fed funds rate is already at its lower limit, the Fed will not be able to deliver such a dovish surprise and yields will have limited downside. Chart I-6Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Chart I-7The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat   The bond market is also vulnerable from a technical perspective. Our Composite Technical Indicator is as overbought today as it was in December 2008 (Chart I-8). Thus, bond prices are vulnerable to good news. Economic activity will be weak for many months, but the recent policy announcements will boost global fiscal deficits by more than $3 trillion in the next 12 to 18 months. Such a large supply of paper is bearish for bonds, especially when they are very expensive. Moreover, global central banks are engaging in large-scale quantitative easing (QE). Globally, monetary authorities have already announced the equivalent of at least $1.9 trillion in asset purchases. The GFC experience showed that QE programs put upward pressure on Treasury yields (Chart I-9). This time will not be different given the combination of QE, supply disruptions caused by quarantines and large fiscal stimulus. Chart I-8A Dire Combination For Bonds A Dire Combination For Bonds A Dire Combination For Bonds Chart I-9QE Pushes Yields Up QE Pushes Yields Up QE Pushes Yields Up     Equities offer the opposite risk/reward ratio to bonds. Technical indicators are consistent with maximum pessimism toward equities and imply that most of the selloff is behind us, at least for the time being. The Complacency-Anxiety Indicator developed by BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy service points to widespread pessimism among investors,4 an intuition confirmed by our Sentiment indicator (Chart I-10). Moreover, our Equity Capitulation Index is as depressed as in March 2009. Investors with a 12-month or longer investment horizon should begin to move capital into equities at the expense of bonds. Despite the magnitude of the shock hitting the global economy, equities will rally if they become cheap enough and monetary conditions are accommodative enough. The BCA Valuation indicator has collapsed to “undervalued” territory and our Monetary Indicator has never been more supportive of equities (both variables are shown on page 2 of Section III). The gap between these two indicators is at its lowest level since Q1 2009 or 1982, two points that marked the end of bear markets (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Equities Have Capitulated Equities Have Capitulated Equities Have Capitulated Chart I-11Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities   Equity multiples also offer some insight into the risk/reward ratio for stocks. The S&P 500 has collapsed by 34% since its February 19th peak and trades at 13 times forward earnings. True, analysts will revise their forecasts, but the market also only trades at 14 times trailing earnings, which cannot be downgraded. Most importantly, investors are extremely gloomy about expected growth when multiples and risk-free rates are so subdued. Risk assets cannot stabilize durably as long as the demand for dollar liquidity is not satiated. Table I-3Evaluating Where The Floor Lies April 2020 April 2020 We can use a simple discounted cash flow model to extract the expected growth rate of long-term earnings embedded in the S&P 500. To do so, we assume that the ERP is 300 basis points, close to the long-term outperformance of stocks versus bonds. At current multiples and 10-year yields, investors are pricing in a long-term growth rate of -2% annually for earnings (Table I-3). In comparison, investors were more pessimistic in 1974, 2008 and 2011 when they anticipated long-term earnings contractions of -2.5% annually. If we assume that the long-term growth of expected earnings will fall to that depth, then we can estimate trailing P/E multiples will be under different risk-free rates. If yields fall to zero, then the P/E would be 17.7 or a price level of 2,692; however, if they rise to 1.5%, then the P/E would decline to 13.9 or a price level of 2,115 (Table I-3). Chart I-12Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated This method suggests that 2200 is the S&P 500’s likely floor. Risk-free rates and the expected growth rate of long-term earnings are correlated series because the anticipated evolution of economic activity drives both real interest rates and earnings (Chart I-12). Thus, it is unlikely that yields will climb if expected earnings growth falls. Instead, if the expected growth rate of long-term earnings drops to -2.5%, then yields should stand between 1% and 0.5%, implying equilibrium trailing P/Es of 15 to 16.3 times, or prices levels of 2,278 to 2,468. P/E will only fall much further if the dollar scramble lasts longer. As investors seek cash and liquidate all assets, the process can push anticipated growth rates lower while pulling bond yields higher (see next section).   Investment Implications Part 2: The Uncontrolled Liquidity Crunch Is Still An Immediate Risk Risk assets cannot stabilize durably as long as the demand for dollar liquidity is not satiated. The large programs announced around the world seem to be calming this liquidity crunch. However, the situation is fluid and the crunch can come back at a moment's notice. Despite the magnitude of the shock hitting the global economy, equities will rally if they become cheap enough and monetary conditions are accommodative enough. Credit spreads blew up as investors priced in the inevitable increase in defaults that accompanies recessions (Chart I-13). Junk spreads moved to as high as 1100 basis points, their highest level since 2009. If we assume that next year, US EBITDA contracts by its average post-war magnitude (a timid assumption), then the interest coverage ratio will deteriorate to readings not seen since the S&L crisis, which will force default rates higher (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Defaults Will Rise Defaults Will Rise Defaults Will Rise Chart I-14Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate     The anticipated contraction in cash flows creates another more pernicious and dangerous consequence: an insatiable demand for dollar liquidity by the private sector. Companies are worried they may not generate the necessary cash flows to service their debt. This is especially worrisome for foreign borrowers who have loans in US dollars. The BIS estimates that foreign currency debt denominated in USDs stands at $12 trillion. Meanwhile, these foreign borrowers are hoarding dollars. The risk aversion of US-based companies is accentuating the dollar crunch. US companies have pulled on their credit lines en masse. US commercial banks must provide this cash to their clients. However, US banks must still meet liquidity requirements imposed by the Basel III rules. As a result, the banks are also hoarding as much cash as possible in the form of excess reserves and curtailed their capital market lending, especially in the repo market. Repos are the lifeblood of capital markets and without repos, market liquidity (the ability to sell and buy securities) quickly deteriorates. This chain of events has caused a sharp widening in Treasury bid-ask spreads, LIBOR-OIS spreads and commercial paper-T-Bill spreads, and has fueled weaknesses in mortgage and municipal bond markets (Chart I-15). The evaporation of the repo market accentuates the foreign liquidity crunch. Without functioning repo markets, dollar funding in offshore markets becomes more onerous, as highlighted by the widening in global cross-currency basis swap spreads (Chart I-16). Borrowers are buying dollars at any cost. This has led to the surge in the dollar from March 9th, which forced the collapse of risky currencies such as the NOK, the BRL or the MXN, but also of safe-haven currencies such as the JPY and the CHF. Chart I-15Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Chart I-16Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage   The strength in the dollar is problematic. As a symptom of the liquidity crunch, it accompanies forced selling of assets by investors seeking to acquire cash. Moreover, the USD is a funding currency, hence a strong dollar also tightens the global cost of capital for all foreign borrowers who have tapped into US capital markets. For US firms, it also accentuates deflationary pressures and the resulting lower price of goods sold increases the risk of bankruptcies. Thus, a strong dollar would feed the weakness in asset prices and further widen credit spreads. Moreover, because the liquidity crunch hurts growth and can concurrently push yields higher, it could pull P/Es below 15 and drive equity prices far below our 2,200 floor. On the positive side, central banks worldwide are keenly aware of the danger created by the liquidity crunch. The Fed has started and restarted a long list of liquidity facilities (Table I-2). Its unlimited QE program also addresses the dollar shortage directly by expanding the supply of money. Crucially, the Fed has re-opened dollar swap lines with other central banks, including emerging markets such as Korea, Singapore, Mexico and Brazil. Even the ECB and the Bank of England are relaxing liquidity ratios for their banks, which at the margin will alleviate the supply of liquidity in their domestic economies. The Fed will likely follow its European counterparts, which could play a large role in alleviating the global dollar shortage. Investors seeking to assess if the supply of liquidity is large enough should pay close attention to gold prices. The global, large-scale fiscal stimulus programs will also address the dollar liquidity crisis. When investors judge there is sufficient fiscal stimulus to put a floor under global economic activity, the markets will take a more sanguine view of the risk of default. If large enough, government spending will support corporate cash flows and, therefore, limit corporate bankruptcies. Consequently, demand for liquidity will also decline and mass asset liquidations will ebb. Chart I-17Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Investors seeking to assess if the supply of liquidity is large enough should look for some key market signals. We pay close attention to gold prices; after March 9th they fell despite the global spike in risk aversion due to gold's extreme sensitivity to global liquidity conditions. Both today and in the fall of 2008, gold prices fell when illiquidity grew. Our gold fair-value model shows that the precious metal is extremely sensitive to inflation expectations and real bond yields (Chart I-17). As illiquidity grows and the dollar appreciates, inflation breakevens collapse and real yields spike. Thus, the recent gold rebound suggests that the Fed and other major central banks have expanded the supply of liquidity sufficiently to meet demand, the price of money will fall (real interest rates) and inflation expectations will rebound. Monitor whether gold can remain well bid. Investment Implications Part 3: FX And Commodity Markets Chart I-18China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China’s stimulus will be a key driver of the FX market in the post-liquidity-crunch world. Historically, because Chinese reflation has lifted the global manufacturing cycle, it possesses a large influence on the dollar’s trend (Chart I-18). We believe that China’s stimulus will be comparable to the one implemented in 2008 and will boost global growth. Moreover, the interest rate advantage of the US has declined and global macro volatility will not remain at current extremes for an extended time. These three factors (Chinese stimulus, lower interest rate differentials and declining volatility) will weigh on the USD in the coming 18 months (Chart I-18, bottom panel). EM currencies and the AUD will benefit most from the dollar depreciation later this year. In the short term, these currencies remain exposed to any flare up in the liquidity crunch and can cheapen further. But, as Chart I-19 highlights, investing in those currencies will likely generate long-term excess returns because they have cheapened significantly. Commodities, too, are becoming attractive at current valuations. Industrial metals such as copper will benefit greatly from China’s stimulus. A rising Chinese credit and fiscal impulse lifts the price of base metals because it pushes up Chinese infrastructure spending as well as residential and capex investment (Chart I-20). Moreover, a lower dollar and accommodative global monetary policy will further boost the appeal of industrial metals. Chart I-19EM FX Is Cheap EM FX Is Cheap EM FX Is Cheap Chart I-20China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China’s stimulus will be a key driver of the FX market in the post-liquidity-crunch world. The oil outlook is particularly unclear as both demand and supply factors are in flux. At $27/bbl, Brent is cheap enough to compensate investors for the decline in demand that will emerge between now and the end of the second quarter. However, the market-share war between Saudi Arabia and Russia layers on the problem of supply risk. Saudi Aramco is set to increase production to 12.3 million barrels by April and Saudi’s GCC allies have announced they are increasing output as well. According to BCA Research’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service, the oil market is already oversupplied by 1.6 million barrels per day, a number that will expand if the KSA and its allies fulfill their production pledges. If this situation persists, oil will lag behind industrial metals when global risk aversion recedes. Nonetheless, our commodity strategists believe that the collapse in oil prices is more painful for Russia than for KSA. We believe there will be a compromise between OPEC and Russia in the coming weeks that will push supply lower.5 Additionally, the Texas Railroad Commission is preparing to impose limitations on Texas oil production, which has not been done since the 1970s. Such a decision would magnify any rebound in oil prices. Thinking Long-Term: The Return Of Stagflation? The COVID-19 outbreak will likely be viewed as an epoch-defining moment. The policy response to the outbreak will be far reaching and the disease will change the way firms manage supply chains for decades to come. There will be a substantial pullback in globalization. COVID-19 has generated an inflationary shock in the medium term. Chart I-21War Spending Is Always Inflationary War Spending Is Always Inflationary War Spending Is Always Inflationary COVID-19 has generated an inflationary shock in the medium term. Governments have suddenly abandoned their preferences for fiscal rectitude. The US deficit will reach a peacetime record of 15% of GDP. These are war-like spending measures. In history, gold standard or not, wars were the main reason for inflationary outbreaks as they involved massive budgetary expansions (Chart I-21). The large monetary easing accompanying the current fiscal expansion will only add to this inflationary impulse. Many of the proposals discussed by governments involve funneling cash directly to households, while central banks buy bonds issued by the same government. This is very close to helicopter money. These policies will increase the velocity of money, which is structurally inflationary (Chart I-22). Naysayers may point to the lack of inflation created by QE programs in the direct aftermath of the GFC. However, at that time, households and commercial banks were much sicker. Today, capital ratios in the US and the Eurozone are 60% and 33% higher than in 2007, respectively (Chart I-23). Thus, banks are much more likely to add to money creation instead of retracting from it as they did in the last cycle. Chart I-22If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation Chart I-23Banks Are Much Healthier Than In 2008 April 2020 April 2020   Chart I-24Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Markets are not ready for higher inflation. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swaps in the US and the euro area stand at only 1.6% and 0.7%, respectively. Household long-term inflation expectations are also at all-time lows (Chart I-24). Therefore, an increase in inflation will have a deep impact on asset prices. The first implication is that gold prices have probably begun a new structural bull market. Inflation will surprise on the upside and keep real interest rates lower. Both these factors are highly bullish for the yellow metal. Additionally, easy fiscal policy and money printing will devalue currencies versus hard assets, which will benefit all precious metals, including gold. EM central banks have recently been diversifying aggressively in gold, which will add another impetuous to its rally. The second implication is that the stock-to-bond ratio has structural upside. Equities are not a perfect inflation hedge, but their profits can rise when selling prices accelerate. However, bonds display rock bottom real yields, inflation protection and term premia. Moreover, their low-running yields are below the dividend yields of equities, which has also boosted bond duration to record levels. Therefore, bonds offer even less protection against higher inflation. Hence, the stock-to-bond ratio will probably follow the historical experience of the 20th century structural bull market and inflect higher (Chart I-25). However, this outperformance will not stem from the superior performance of stocks in real terms; rather, it will emerge from a very poor performance by bonds. Chart I-25The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map Thirdly, the structural relative bear market in EM equities will likely end soon. EM equities will enjoy strong real asset prices and EM assets have much more appealing valuations than DM stocks. This is an imbedded inflation protection. The world is witnessing a fiscal and monetary push that will result in lower productivity growth and profit margins, along with feared inflation. The next decade could increasingly look like the stagflationary 1970s. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 26, 2020 Next Report: April 30, 2020   II. Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the real neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even once economic recovery takes hold unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). This report revisits the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrates why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. We also outline an inferential approach that investors can use to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. The core conclusion for investors is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, investors should avoid dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about yields as they may rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. Over the past several weeks financial markets have moved rapidly to price in a global recession stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. As financial market participants began to turn to policy makers for support, eyes focused first on the Federal Reserve, and then fiscal authorities. Earlier this week, the ECB joined the party and announced aggressive further measures of its own. When responding to the Fed’s return to the lower bound and its other recent monetary policy decisions, many market participants have expressed the view that the Fed is largely impotent to deal with a global pandemic. There are three elements to this view. The first is that interest rate cuts are ill equipped to stimulate domestic demand if quarantine measures or other forms of “social distancing” are in effect. The second element is that the Fed has only been capable of delivering a fraction of the reduction in interest rates compared to what has occurred in response to previous contractions. The third aspect of this view is that because the neutral rate of interest is so much lower now than it was in the past, Fed rate cuts will not be as stimulative as they were before. Chart II-1Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate While we at least partly agree with the first and second elements of this view, we feel strongly that the third is flawed. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013,6 and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. This time series, which is regularly updated by the New York Fed,7 suggests that the real fed funds rate reached neutral territory in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart II-1). With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even beyond the near term unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). In this Special Report we revisit the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrate why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. Our analysis does not reveal a precise alternative estimate of the neutral rate, although we do provide some inferential perspective on how investors may be able to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. However, the core insight emanating from our report, particularly for US fixed income investors, is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once economic activity recovers. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise may be larger than many investors currently expect. Demystifying The LW R-star Estimate The LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest has gained credibility for three reasons. First, as noted above, the evolution of the series fits with the secular stagnation narrative re-popularized by Larry Summers. Second, the series is essentially sponsored by the Federal Reserve even if it is not officially part of the Fed’s forecasting framework, as its two creators are long-time Fed employees (Thomas Laubach is a director of the Fed’s Board of Governors, and John Williams is the current President of the New York Fed). But, in our view, there is a third important reason that global investors have accepted the LW R-star estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the methodology used to generate the estimate is extremely technically complex, and thus is difficult for most investors to penetrate. Much of the technical complexity of the LW estimate is centered around the use of a statistical procedure called a Kalman filter (“KF”). Simply described, the KF is an algorithm that tries to estimate an unobservable variable based on 1) an idea of how the unobservable variable might relate to an observable variable (the “measurement equation”), and 2) an idea of how the unobservable variable might change through time (the “transition equation”). Through a repeated process of simulating the unobserved variable based on a set of assumptions, the KF is able to compare predicted results to actual results on an observation-by-observation basis, and use that information to generate ever more reliable future estimates of the unobserved variable (Chart II-2). Chart II-2A Very Simplified Overview Of The Kalman Filter Algorithm April 2020 April 2020 We acknowledge that a full technical treatment of the Kalman Filter as it relates to the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest is beyond the scope of this report, and we provide a more technical overview in Box II-1. But what emerges from a detailed analysis of the model is that the Kalman Filter jointly estimates R-star, potential GDP growth, potential GDP, and the variable “z”, the determinants of R-star that are not explained by potential GDP growth. As we will highlight in the next section, this joint estimation of these four variables is a crucial aspect of the model, because a valid estimate of R-star necessitates a valid estimate of the remaining variables. BOX II-1 A Technical Overview Of The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Chart Box II-1 shows that there are three sets of formulas involved in the LW estimation: the “law of motion” for the neutral rate of interest, two measurement equations, and three transition equations. The law of motion for the neutral rate is fairly simple: R-star is a function of trend real GDP growth, as well as “other factors” represented by the variable “z”. Laubach & Williams note that z “captures factors such as households’ rate of time preference”. The measurement equations are also fairly straightforward. First, the (unobservable) output gap is a function of lagged values of itself as well as the lagged real Fed funds rate gap (relative to the unobservable neutral rate). Second, inflation is a function of lagged values of itself, past values of the output gap, relative core import prices, and lagged relative imported oil prices (the latter two variables are included to capture potential supply shocks to inflation). Note that this second measurement equation is required for the model to work, as it relates the unobservable output gap to observable inflation. As presented in Chart II-2, the three transition equations are present to simulate how the unobservable variables might move through time. Potential growth and potential output are a random walk, and “z” from the law of motion follows either a random walk or an autoregressive process. Chart Box II-1The Laubach & Williams R-star Model April 2020 April 2020 Debunking The LW R-star Estimate Before criticizing the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest, it is important for us to note that we have the utmost respect for the Federal Reserve and its research methods. We fully acknowledge that the LW R-star estimation is rooted in solid economic theory, and we have identified no technical errors in the setup of the LW model. Nevertheless, valid analytical efforts sometimes lead to problematic real-world results, and there are two key reasons to believe that the Kalman filter in the LW model is almost certainly misspecifying R-star, at least in terms of its estimate over the past two decades. The first reason relates to the sensitivity of the model to the interval of estimation (the period over which R-star is estimated). Chart II-3 presents the range of quarterly estimates of R-star since 2005, along with the difference between the high and low end of the range in the second panel. The chart shows that while previous estimates of R-star have generally been stable for values ranging between the early-1980s and 2006/2007, pre-1980 estimates have varied quite substantially and we have seen material revisions to the estimates over the past decade. Q1 2018 serves as an excellent example: in that quarter R-star was estimated to be 0.14%; today, the Q1 2018 R-star estimate sits at 0.92%. Chart II-3Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates However, Table II-1 and Chart II-4 highlight the real instability of the Kalman filter estimation by demonstrating the effect of varying the starting point of the model (please see Box II-2 for a brief description of how our estimation of R-star using the LW approach differs slightly from the original procedure). Laubach & Williams originally estimated R-star beginning in Q1 1961; Table II-1 shows what happens to today’s estimate of R-star simply by incrementally varying the starting point of the model from Q1 1958 to Q4 1979. Table II-1Alternative Current LW Estimates Of R-star By Model Starting Point April 2020 April 2020 Chart II-4Alternative Starting Points Produce Wildly Different Estimates Of R-star Today April 2020 April 2020 BOX II-2 The Laubach & Williams R-star Model With Simplified Inflation Expectations To proxy inflation expectations in their model, Laubach & Williams use a “forecast of the four-quarter-ahead percentage change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy (“core PCE prices”) generated from a univariate AR(3) of inflation estimated over the prior 40 quarters”. The authors note that a simplified measure of expectations, a 4-quarter moving average of quarterly annualized core inflation, does not materially alter their results. For the sake of parsimony we use this simplified measure in our analysis. We find that the effect shifts the current estimate of R-star only slightly (+10 basis points), and that the historical differences between our version of the 1961 estimation and the official series are indeed minor. The table highlights that the model fails to even generate a result in a majority of the cases (only 39 out of 88 of the model runs were error-free). In addition, Chart II-4 shows that of the successful estimates of R-star using the LW procedure and alternate starting dates of the model, the estimate of R-star today varies from -2% (in one case) to +2%. Excluding the one extremely negative outlier results in an effective estimate range of 0% to 2%, but the key point for investors is that this range is massive and underscores that the original model’s estimate of R-star today is heavily and unduly influenced by the interval of estimation. Investors should also note that of all of the alternative estimates of R-star today shown in Chart II-4, the estimate using the original interval is very much on the low end of the distribution. The second (and most important) reason to believe that the LW estimate is misspecifying R-star is that the output gap estimate generated by the model is almost certainly invalid, at least over the past two decades. Chart II-5presents the LW output gap estimate alongside an average of the CBO, OECD, and IMF estimates of the gap; panel 1 shows the official current LW output gap estimate, whereas panel 2 shows the range of output gap estimates that are generated using the different estimation intervals highlighted in Table II-1 and Chart II-4. Chart II-5The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades Given that the Kalman filter in the LW model jointly determines R-star and the output gap (by way of estimating potential output via estimating potential GDP growth) and that these estimates are dependent on each other, Chart II-5 highlights that in order to believe the LW R-star estimate investors must believe three things: That the US economy was chronically below potential in the late-1990s when the unemployment rate was below 5%, real GDP growth averaged nearly 5%, and the equity market was booming, That output exceeded potential in 2004/2005 by a magnitude not seen since the late-1970s / early-1980s despite an average unemployment rate, That the 2008/2009 US recession was not particularly noteworthy in terms of its deviation from potential output, and that the economy had returned to potential output by 2010/2011 when the unemployment rate was in the range of 8-9%. Chart II-6The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 While we do not believe any of these three statements, the third is especially unlikely. Chart II-6 highlights that the economic expansion from 2009 – 2020 was the weakest on record in the post-war era in terms of average annual real per capita GDP growth. To us, this is a clear symptom of a chronic deficiency in aggregate demand, and that it is essentially unreasonable to argue that the economy was operating at full employment prior to 2014/2015. This means that the Kalman filter is generating incorrect and unreliable estimates of the output gap, which means in turn that the filter’s estimation of R-star is almost assuredly wrong. How Can Investors Tell What The Neutral Rate Is? An Inferential Approach Table II-2 presents the sensitivity of the original Q1 1961 LW estimate of R-star to a series of counterfactual scenarios for inflation, real GDP growth, nominal interest rates, and import and oil prices since mid-2009. While these scenarios do not in any way improve the validity of the LW R-star estimate, they do help clarify the theoretical basis of the model and they help reveal how investors may infer whether the neutral rate of interest is higher or lower than prevailing market rates, and whether it is rising or falling. Table II-2Sensitivity Of Current LW R-star Estimate To Counterfactual Scenarios (2009 - Present) April 2020 April 2020 Chart II-7Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Table II-2 highlights that today’s estimate of R-star using the original LW approach is mostly sensitive to our counterfactual scenarios for growth and interest rates, but not inflation or oil prices. Shifting down import price growth also has a meaningful effect on R-star, but since core import price growth has been particularly weak over the past several years (Chart II-7), it seems unreasonable to suggest that they have been abnormally high and thus “explain” a low R-star estimate today. Table II-2 essentially highlights that the entire question of the neutral rate of interest over the past decade, and the core contradiction that led to the re-emergence of the secular stagnation thesis, can effectively be boiled down to the following simple question: “Why hasn’t US economic growth been stronger this cycle, given that interest rates have been so low?” Based on the (hopefully uncontroversial) view that interest rates influence economic activity and that economic activity influences inflation, we propose the following checklist for investors to ask themselves in order to not only determine the answer to this important question, but to help identify whether R-star in any given country is likely higher or lower than existing policy rates at any given point in time. Are interest rates above or below the prevailing level of economic growth? Are interest rates rising or falling, and how intensely? Are there identifiable non-monetary shocks (positive or negative) that appear to be influencing economic activity? Is private sector credit growth keeping pace with economic growth? Are debt service burdens in the economy high or low? The first question reflects the most basic view of R-star, which is that the real neutral rate of interest should be equal to, or at least closely related to, the potential growth rate of the economy, ceteris paribus. Questions 2 through 5 attempt to determine whether ceteris paribus holds. In terms of how the answers to these questions relate to identifying the neutral rate, consider two economies, “Economy A” and “Economy B” (Chart II-8). Economy A has broadly stable or slightly rising interest rates that are well below prevailing rates of economic growth (questions 1 & 2), no obvious beneficial shocks to domestic demand from fiscal policy or other factors (question 3), and strong private sector credit growth that is perhaps above or strongly above the current pace of GDP growth (question 4). Chart II-8'Economy A', Versus 'Economy B' April 2020 April 2020 Inferentially, it would seem that interest rates in this hypothetical economy are below R-star today. Question 5 is in our list because the more that active private sector leveraging occurs (thus pushing up debt burdens), the more that we would expect R-star in the future to fall. This is because debt payments as a share of income cannot rise forever, and we would expect that the capacity of economy A’s central bank to raise interest rates in the future are negatively related to economy A’s private sector debt service burden today. Now, imagine another economy (“Economy B”) with interest rates well below average rates of economic growth, an interest rate trend that is flat-to-down, no identifiable non-monetary policy shocks that are restricting aggregate demand, persistently sluggish credit growth, and high private sector debt service burdens in the past. If economy B is growing (even sluggishly) and not in the middle of a recession, it would seem that prevailing interest rates are below R-star, but not significantly so. In this scenario it would seem reasonable to conclude that R-star in economy B has fallen non-trivially below its potential growth rate, and that interest rate increases are likely to move monetary policy into restrictive territory earlier than otherwise would be the case. Is The United States “Economy B”? From the perspective of some investors, our description of economy B above perfectly captures the experience of the US over the past decade: an extremely low Fed funds rate, sluggish to weak growth and inflation, all the result of a huge build-up in leverage and debt service burdens during the last economic cycle. We do not doubt that R-star fell in the US for some period of time during the global financial crisis and in the early phase of the economic recovery. But we doubt that it is as low today as the secular stagnation narrative would imply, in large part because it ignores several important aspects concerning questions 2 through 5 noted above. Chart II-9Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies: Over the past 12 years, there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnect between growth and interest rates: 1) a prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014, 2) the euro area sovereign debt crisis, 3) fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 (Chart II-9), 4) the US dollar / oil price shock of 2014, and 5) the recent trade war between the US and China. Several of these shocks have been policy-driven, and in the case of austerity the negative consequences of that policy has led to a lasting change in thinking among fiscal authorities (outside of Japan) that is unlikely to reverse in the near-future. Chart II-10Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Private sector credit growth: Chart II-10 highlights the extent of household deleveraging noted above by showing the growth in total household liabilities over the past decade alongside income growth. Panel 2 shows the leveraging trend of firms, as represented by the nonfinancial corporate sector debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart II-10 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it is now growing again and has largely closed the gap with income growth. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector has clearly leveraged itself over the course of the expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. While it is true that firms have largely leveraged themselves to buy back stock instead of significantly increasing capital expenditures, in our view this reflects the fact that US consumer demand was impaired for several years due to deleveraging. We doubt that firms would have altered their capital structures to this degree if they did not view interest rates as extremely low. Debt service burdens: Chart II-11 highlights that US household debt service burdens were at very elevated levels prior to the financial crisis, suggesting that the neutral rate did fall for some time following the recession. But today, the debt burden facing households is the lowest it has been in the past 40 years due to both rate reductions and deleveraging, arguing against the view that household debt levels will structurally weigh on interest rates in the years to come. Chart II-12 shows that the picture is different for nonfinancial corporations, as the substantial leveraging noted above has indeed raised debt service burdens for firms. However, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio remains 400 basis points below early-2000 levels when excess corporate sector liabilities had a clear impact on the economy, suggesting that the Fed’s capacity to raise interest rates still exists following the onset of economic recovery if corporate sector credit growth does not rise sharply relative to GDP over the coming 6-12 months. Chart II-11The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low Chart II-12Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise   The intensity of recent interest rate changes: Finally, many investors have pointed to sluggish housing activity over the past three years as evidence of a low neutral rate. However, Chart II-13 highlights that the rise in the 30-year US mortgage rate from late-2016 to late-2018 was one of the largest two-year changes in US history, and Chart II-14 shows that the growth in household mortgage credit did not fall below its trend during this period until Q4 2018, when the US stock market fell 20% from its high in response to the economic consequences of the US/China trade war. Chart II-14 also shows that mortgage credit growth responded sharply to a recent reduction in interest rates. All in all, Charts II-13 & II-14 cast doubt on the notion that the level of mortgage rates over the past three years reached restrictive territory. Chart II-13Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Chart II-14A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market   Investment Conclusions In the face of a global pandemic and an attendant global recession this year, the idea of eventual Fed rate hikes and the notion that the US economy will be able to tolerate them likely seems preposterous to many investors. We agree that over the coming 6-12 months US Treasury yields are unlikely to rise; even at current levels of the 10-year Treasury yield, we are reluctant to call a trough. Chart II-15US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade However, Chart II-15highlights that over a long-term time horizon, the bond market is now essentially priced for a repeat of the ten-year path of the Fed funds rate following the global financial crisis. While some investors will view this as a reasonable expectation in the face of what they see as a persistent and unexplainable gap between growth and interest rates over the past decade, we think this gap is explainable and we highly doubt that a pandemic with minimal mortality risk to the working age population and the young will cause the US economy to be afflicted with active consumer deleveraging lasting 4 to 6-years, substantial and wide-ranging fiscal austerity, persistently rising trade tariffs, and sharply lower oil prices. So while we agree that the US economy will be substantially cyclically affected by COVID-19, US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise following the upcoming recession may be larger than many investors currently believe.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we continued to strike a cautious tactical tone. Valuations were not depressed enough to compensate investors for the lack of clarity around the path of COVID-19. In other words, there was not enough of a risk premium imbedded in asset prices if COVID-19 cases were to spread around the world. Now that COVID-19 has spread around the planet, asset valuations have adjusted massively. The BCA Valuation Indicator for the S&P 500 is now in undervalued territory, thanks to both lower prices and interest rates. Meanwhile, the BCA Monetary Indicator has never been more accommodative than it is today. Together, these two indicators suggest that twelve months from now, equities will stand at higher levels than they do today. Tactically, equities have most probably found their floor. Both our Composite Sentiment Indicator and the VIX are consistent with a capitulation. Anecdotal evidences also point to a capitulation by retail investors. Additionally, Our RPI indicator is finally starting to try to turn up. Nonetheless, equities will likely re-test their Monday March 23rd floor as the length of US and global quarantines that are so damaging to growth (but for now, necessary) remain uncertain. The cleanest way to express a positive 12-month outlook on equities is to bet on a rise in the stock-to-bond ratio. 10-year Treasurys are as expensive as they were in late 2008 and early 1986, two periods followed by rapid rises in yields. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicators is 2.5 sigma overbought. The yield curve is steepening anew, which confirms the intuition that yields will experience significant upside over the coming 12 months. On a longer-term basis, inflation expectations are too low to compensate investors for the inflation risk created by a larger monetary and fiscal expansion than the one witnessed in 2008. That being said, EM sovereigns are getting attractive for long-term investors.  Following the surge in the dollar that accompanied the liquidity crunch that surrounded the COVID-19 panic, the dollar is now trading at its most expensive level since 1985. The large liquidity injections by the Fed should cap the dollar for now, but the greenback will need more clarity on the end of global quarantines before it can fall decisively. Nonetheless, it will depreciate significantly once the global economy rebounds due to the powerful reflationary impulse building up around the world. Finally, commodity prices are retesting their 2008 lows. They are not as oversold as they were then, but this is good sign as the advance/decline line of our Continuous Commodity Index continues to trend higher. Thus, if as we expect, the dollar’s surge is ending, commodities are likely to be in the process of finding a floor right now. Once investors become more optimistic about the outlook for global growth, commodities will likely rebound sharply, maybe even more so than stocks. Therefore, it is a good time to begin accumulating metals, energy and equities as well as FX linked to natural resources prices. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "March 2020," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Chwieroth, Jeffrey M., Walter, Andrew, The Wealth Effect: How the Great Expectations of the Middle Class Have Changed the Politics of Banking Crises, 2019. 3  A relaxation of social-distancing measures would likely mean that large-scale gatherings are still prohibited, and life would not return to normal for a long time. 4  Please see US Equity Strategy "The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn," dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy "KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War," dated March 19, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 6  "IMF Fourteenth Annual Research Conference in Honor of Stanley Fischer," Washington DC, November 8, 2013. 7  "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Highlights Duration: Last week’s bond market sell-off was a headfake and does not portend a sustained move higher in Treasury yields. We will need to see a stabilization in confirmed COVID-19 cases and signs of improving global growth before calling the bottom in yields. Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. Yield Curve: A fed funds rate pinned at zero means that the yield curve will trade directionally with yields for the foreseeable future. The yield curve’s recent re-shaping also means that a barbelled Treasury portfolio now only offers a small yield advantage. We recommend shifting out of a barbell and into a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Corporate Spreads: High-yield spreads are now fairly priced for a default cycle of similar magnitude to the 2001/02 recession, and the Fed’s entrance into the corporate bond market is a potential game changer for investment grade spreads. Investors should increase exposure to investment grade corporates from neutral to overweight. High-yield investors with horizons of 12 months or more should also start adding exposure. Fed Policy: The Fed is frantically trying to mitigate the impact of three different (though related) shocks: An economic shock, a liquidity shock and a credit shock. We assess its progress to date and discuss what could be done next. Feature Headfake Chart 1Not A Reflationary Environment Not A Reflationary Environment Not A Reflationary Environment Bond yields jumped early last week, shortly after the Fed cut rates back to the zero bound. At one point the 10-year Treasury yield reached as high as 1.18%. But make no mistake, this was not the start of a protracted bond sell off. By Monday morning, the 10-year was back down to 0.75%. Evidently, the conditions for a sustained move higher in Treasury yields are not yet in place. To see why this is so, we need to look a little bit beyond the headline grabbing change in nominal yields and notice that, even when the nominal 10-year yield moved up early last week, the 10-year real yield increased much more quickly, causing the implied cost of inflation protection to fall (Chart 1). This is unusual behavior. Typically, real yields, nominal yields and breakeven inflation rates are all positively correlated. This is because an improving economic outlook usually leads investors to expect both higher inflation and a higher fed funds rate in the future, and vice-versa. When the correlation breaks down it is usually related to some policy action or constraint. For example, investors could come to believe that the Fed will keep interest rates too low for far too long, causing real yields to fall even as inflation expectations jump. Or, as is the case right now, the market could recognize the zero-lower-bound constraint on Fed policy and start to price-in a scenario where the Fed can’t cut rates far enough to jumpstart economic growth. Real yields move higher in this scenario, but inflation expectations crash. We are seeing the same dynamic of rising real yields and falling inflation expectations that was witnessed in 2008. This same dynamic of rising real yields and falling inflation expectations was witnessed in 2008, when the Fed was rapidly cutting rates but investors did not view that action as sufficient (Chart 2). Falling equity prices and a rising dollar further underscored that the environment was becoming more deflationary, not reflationary. A sustained rise in bond yields can only be caused by a reflationary environment. Chart 2Shades Of 2008 Shades Of 2008 Shades Of 2008 How Close To The Bottom? The relevant question then becomes: How close are we to returning to a reflationary environment? To answer this question we will rely on the checklist to call the bottom in bond yields that we unveiled two weeks ago.1 That checklist contains four factors: A stabilization in confirmed COVID-19 cases Improving global economic growth (particularly in China) Weaker US economic data A trigger from one or more technical trading rules Last week we started to see the first signs of weaker US economic data. Initial jobless claims spiked to 281k and both the New York and Philadelphia Fed regional manufacturing surveys plunged (Chart 3). We expect the bottom in bond yields will occur when the US economic data are very weak and when economies that experienced the outbreak earlier – such as China – are showing signs of rebounding. Investors will superimpose the Chinese experience onto the US. But it is still too early for that. Global growth bellwethers such as the CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index remain in freefall (Chart 3, bottom panel). We also noted that we want to see stabilization in the global number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Essentially, this would mean the number of daily new cases falling close to zero. We are far from that point, as the daily number of new cases continues to rise exponentially (Chart 4). Chart 3Weaker US Data, But No Global Recovery Weaker US Data, But No Global Recovery Weaker US Data, But No Global Recovery Chart 4New Cases Still Rising New Cases Still Rising New Cases Still Rising We should also mention that we expect risk assets – equities and corporate credit – to bottom before Treasury yields, as the Fed will take care not to signal a premature removal of crisis stimulus measures. Finally, two weeks ago we described several technical trading rules that have demonstrated some success at calling troughs in Treasury yields in the past. Since last week, one of our three proposed trading rules was briefly triggered, but that signal was quickly reversed. Bottom Line: Last week’s bond market sell-off was a headfake and does not portend a sustained move higher in Treasury yields. We will need to see a stabilization in confirmed COVID-19 cases and signs of improving global growth before calling the bottom in yields. Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. A Quick Note On TIPS In last week’s report we made the case for long-term investors to buy TIPS relative to equivalent-maturity nominal Treasuries.2  The reasoning is that TIPS breakeven inflation rates offer exceptional value relative to likely future inflation outcomes. For example, the 5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 0.31% and the 10-year rate is 0.75%. This means that a buy-and-hold investor will make money owning TIPS versus nominals if inflation averages more than 0.31% per year for the next five years, or 0.75% per year for the next decade. Chart 51-Year TIPS Return Scenarios Life At The Zero Bound Life At The Zero Bound We also observed last week that TIPS breakeven inflation rates have turned negative at the front-end of the curve. We described this pricing as irrational because of the embedded deflation floors in TIPS. This was incorrect. While TIPS will always pay at least par at maturity, seasoned TIPS with only a year or two left to maturity already have inflation-adjusted principal values that are well above par. In other words, there is room for deflation to influence the returns from these securities before any floor is triggered. Specifically, we can take a look at the TIPS maturing in just over one year, on April 15 2021 (Chart 5). This note has an accumulated principal of just under $109 and is currently trading at an ask price of $97.63.3 According to our calculations, this security will earn 2.55% if headline CPI inflation is 0% over the next 12 months. It will only lose money if headline CPI inflation comes in at -2.49% or below. What’s more, it will return more than a 12-month nominal T-bill as long as inflation is above -2.4%. Note that the lowest year-over-year headline CPI inflation print during the Great Financial Crisis was -2.1%. TIPS offer exceptional value relative to nominal Treasuries for investors who are able to hold the trade for at least one year. Bottom Line: TIPS offer exceptional value relative to nominal Treasuries for investors who are able to hold the trade for at least one year.  Treasury Curve: Re-Visiting The Zero-Lower-Bound Playbook Chart 6Curve Will Trade Directionally With Yields Curve Will Trade Directionally With Yields Curve Will Trade Directionally With Yields The Fed’s aggressive policy easing has caused the yield curve to re-shape dramatically during the past few weeks. The 2/10 Treasury slope is up to 55 bps from a 2019 low of -4 bps. The 2/30 Treasury slope is up to 118 bps from a 2019 low of 42 bps, and the 2/5 Treasury slope is up to 15 bps from a 2019 low of -13 bps. Looking through the recent volatility, the fact that the fed funds rate is back to a range between 0% and 0.25% means that we can dust off our yield curve playbook from the last zero-lower-bound period. Fortunately, that playbook is quite straightforward. With the front-end of the curve pinned near zero, the slope of the yield curve will essentially trade directionally with the level of Treasury yields for the foreseeable future. Chart 6 shows that during the last zero-lower-bound period, the 2/30, 2/10 and 2/5 slopes were all positively correlated with the 5-year Treasury yield. This correlation suggests one obvious strategy. If you think yields will rise, put on steepeners. If you think they will fall, put on flatteners. Or if, like us, you suspect that bond yields will be higher in 12 months but are not quite ready to call the bottom, you could hedge benchmark or above-benchmark portfolio duration by entering a duration-neutral steepener. What About Value Across The Curve? Chart 7Bullets Looking Less Expensive Bullets Looking Less Expensive Bullets Looking Less Expensive Until recently, investors could earn large positive carry by owning a barbell consisting of the long and short ends of the Treasury curve (e.g. 2/30) and shorting the belly (e.g. 5yr), in duration-matched terms. But this has changed. The 2/10 barbell now only offers 6 bps of positive carry versus the 5-year bullet, while the 2/30 barbell and 5-year bullet offer approximately the same yield. Both the 2/5/10 and 2/5/30 butterfly spreads are also much closer to the fair values suggested by our models (Chart 7).4 Though we are not ready to call the bottom in Treasury yields, we think the 5-year yield is sufficiently attractive to initiate a duration-neutral curve steepener trade: go long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This trade should perform well if the 2/10 slope steepens going forward. Since a steeper curve is now positively correlated with the level of yields, this trade will profit if yields move higher. Viewed this way, the trade acts as a hedge when implemented alongside our conservative ‘At Benchmark’ portfolio duration recommendation. Bottom Line: A fed funds rate pinned at zero means that the yield curve will trade directionally with yields for the foreseeable future. The yield curve’s recent re-shaping also means that a barbelled Treasury portfolio now only offers a small yield advantage. We recommend shifting out of a barbell and into a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Corporate Spread Update Corporate spreads continue to widen very quickly. As such, our conclusions from last week about the amount of value in corporate bonds are already out of date. Our value assessment is based on our High-Yield Default-Adjusted Spread, which is the excess spread left over in the high-yield index after removing actual 12-month default losses. Table 1 shows how often the Default-Adjusted Spread has been in different 50 basis point intervals, and what sort of 12-month junk excess returns occurred during those periods. One conclusion from the table: To be confident that high-yield will outperform duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month horizon, we would need to expect a Default-Adjusted Spread of at least 150 bps. Preferably, the spread would be greater than or equal to 250 bps, the historical average. The red numbers down the right-hand side of Table 1 indicate what the Default-Adjusted Spread will be for the next 12 months if the speculative grade default rate hits a specific value. For example, a default rate of 6%, which would correspond to a default cycle of a similar magnitude as 2015/16, implies a very attractive Default-Adjusted Spread of +633 bps. In contrast, a default rate of 14% or greater would lead to a negative Default-Adjusted Spread. For context, the default rate peaked at 15% and 11% in the 2008 and 2001/2 recessions, respectively. Table 1What's Priced In Credit Spreads? Life At The Zero Bound Life At The Zero Bound As of now, our base case scenario is that the current default cycle will be more severe than the 2015/16 episode but probably not as bad as the 2008 financial crisis. Something on the order of 9% - 11% seems plausible. If that’s the case, then the Default-Adjusted Spread will be somewhere between 216 bps and 394 bps. This looks quite attractive. Additionally, yesterday’s announcement that the Fed will effectively be entering the investment grade corporate bond market could be a game changer. As a result, we recommend increasing exposure to investment grade corporate bonds from neutral to overweight. For high-yield, it is possible that spreads will widen more in the near-term, but value is now sufficiently attractive for investors with investment horizons of 12 months or more to start adding exposure. We retain our neutral 6-12 month recommended allocation for now, but will re-visit the question in more detail in next week’s report.  To be confident that high-yield will outper­form duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month horizon, we would need to expect a Default-Adjusted Spread of at least 150 bps.  Bottom Line: High-yield spreads are now fairly priced for a default cycle of similar magnitude to the 2001/02 recession, and the Fed’s entrance into the corporate bond market is a potential game changer for investment grade spreads. Investors should increase exposure to investment grade corporates from neutral to overweight. High-yield investors with horizons of 12 months or more should also start adding exposure. The Fed’s War On Three Fronts   Events continue to unfold rapidly in financial markets and in terms of the Fed’s response to the market turmoil. We conclude this week’s report with a brief discussion of the three main shocks that the Fed is frantically trying to contain. We also assess how successful the Fed’s responses might be. #1: The Economic Shock The first shock that the Fed is trying to contain is the pure shock to aggregate demand that is occurring as a result of widespread quarantine measures. In cutting rates to zero and signaling that rates will not rise any time soon, the Fed has effectively done all it can to help fight the economic shock. It should help a little. Lower interest rates will ease the debt burden of homeowners who can refinance their mortgages. They may also lower costs for firms that are able to issue debt to weather the current storm. But these effects are minor compared to the fiscal measures currently making their way through Congress.5 Next steps for the Fed: None. The Fed is effectively out of bullets to contain the economic shock. It’s all about fiscal policy now. #2: Market Liquidity Shock Chart 8Bond Market Liquidity Shock Bond Market Liquidity Shock Bond Market Liquidity Shock In addition to the economic shock, the Fed is also responding to a severe market liquidity shock. What we mean by a “market liquidity shock” is that investors are finding it more expensive (or difficult) to transact in certain markets because of the scarce amount of capital being deployed to those areas. This is different than credit risk (see Shock #3). We are not talking about investors having trouble transacting because there are few willing buyers of credit risk. We are talking about high transaction costs in otherwise risk-free parts of the bond market. The issue is critical because these risk-free parts of the bond market (overnight repo, for example) are often used to fund riskier investments. Disruption in funding markets can have ripple-on effects into other, less opaque, areas. We currently see several examples of disruptions to bond market liquidity (Chart 8): Repo rates have spiked relative to the overnight index swap curve (Chart 8, top panel). The iShares 20+ year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) is suddenly trading at a huge discount to its net asset value (Chart 8, panel 2). Cross-currency basis swap spreads have turned deeply negative, meaning that it is more expensive for non-US actors to obtain US dollar funding (Chart 8, bottom panel). Wider-than-normal bid/ask spreads are being reported in the Treasury market (not shown). These disruptions are occurring because the financial system is not deploying enough capital to market-making activities in these areas. Essentially, nonfinancial firms have drawn on their revolving credit lines during the past few weeks and this has left the financial system short of cash to deploy toward market-making activities. To fix the problem, the Fed has started to transact directly (in large amounts) in both the repo and Treasury markets. This essentially replaces the function that banks were performing until a few weeks ago. But perhaps more importantly, the Fed is also encouraging banks to deploy the capital that already sits on their balance sheets. Unlike during the 2008 financial crisis, banks now carry a lot of capital – the result of Dodd-Frank and Basel III regulations. What the banks need now is tacit permission from regulators to deploy that capital into financial markets, without concern that they will face consequences during a future stress test. Table 2Banks Have Excess Capital Life At The Zero Bound Life At The Zero Bound Even without any specific changes to regulation, Table 2 shows that the big 5 US financial institutions all carry significant buffers above the regulatory minimum 100% Liquidity Coverage Ratio and 6% Supplementary Leverage Ratio. At a minimum, these excess buffers must be deployed to aid market liquidity. Next steps: The Fed is already transacting directly in both the repo and Treasury markets, and behind closed doors it is most certainly encouraging banks to deploy more capital toward market-making activities. If these actions prove insufficient, the next step would be for the Fed – along with other regulators and possibly Congress – to offer temporary regulatory relief for banks, lowering the required Liquidity Coverage and Supplementary Leverage ratios. We view this market liquidity problem as one that regulators will be able to solve. And given the Fed’s aggressive policy response to date, we expect that regulators will get a handle on the issue and restore bond market liquidity fairly soon. #3 Credit Shock Chart 9Can The Credit Shock Be Contained? Can The Credit Shock Be Contained? Can The Credit Shock Be Contained? We draw a distinction between spreads widening because of a lack of market liquidity and spreads widening because investors are unwilling to take credit risk. Though admittedly, it is not always easy to distinguish between these two factors in real time. But there is no doubt that the economy is also grappling with a credit shock, in addition to the economic and liquidity shocks we already mentioned. Some evidence that market players are less willing to take credit risk (Chart 9): The average option-adjusted spread on the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Bond index has spiked (Chart 9, top panel). The spread between the 3-month commercial paper rate and the overnight index swap rate has surged (Chart 9, panel 2). The Municipal / Treasury yield ratio is higher than it was during the financial crisis (Chart 9, panel 3). The 30-year mortgage rate has so far not followed Treasury yields lower (Chart 9, bottom panel). The Fed can take some measures to mitigate the negative impacts of a credit shock, and it has already taken quite a few. The Fed has set up facilities to back-stop commercial paper and short-maturity municipal debt. It also announced yesterday morning that it will, in conjunction with the Treasury department, enter the investment grade corporate bond market out to the 5-year maturity point, effectively back-stopping a large portion of corporate issuance. The Fed has not yet set up a facility to purchase longer-maturity municipal bonds, but this could be forthcoming. The Fed is also directly purchasing large amounts of Agency MBS in an effort to tighten the spread between the mortgage rate and Treasury yields. The Fed’s measures to guarantee some risky debt can help solve some problems related to a credit shock. For example, if Fed purchases increase asset values for corporate and municipal bonds, then it lessens the risk of bankruptcy both for the issuing firms and for any systemically-important investment fund that may be levered to those markets. However, Fed purchases do not guarantee that stressed firms will be able to take out new debt, nor do they prevent firms from cutting payrolls in the face of lower demand. Only direct cash bailouts from the government can fix those problems. Next steps: The Fed could add another facility to purchase long-maturity municipal bonds. It could also implement a “funding for lending” scheme similar to what the Bank of England has done. These measures, along with what has already been announced, will help ease the credit shock at the margin. But ultimately, cash bailouts from Congress to firms and state & local governments will be required.    Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When And Where Will Bond Yields Trough?”, dated March 10, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buying Opportunities & Worst-Case Scenarios”, dated March 17, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Numbers quoted assuming a par value of $100. 4 For details on our yield curve models please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 The global fiscal response to the COVID crisis is discussed in more detail in Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “De-Globalization Confirmed”, dated March 20, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

  Highlights Market Turmoil: The combination of accelerating global cases of COVID-19, a surging US dollar and elevated market volatility has wreaked havoc on financial markets. A sustainable bottom in global risk assets (and, potentially, bond yields) requires a reversal of all three of those trends. Fed & ECB: Central bankers on both sides of the Atlantic are now committing to provide liquidity backstops for both government bonds and corporate debt by promising “unlimited” purchases. This effectively removes the left tail of the return distribution on debt of more questionable quality that has seen significant spread widening, like US BBB-rated corporates and Peripheral European sovereign debt. Fixed Income Strategy: Upgrade US investment grade corporates to overweight from neutral, and upgrade Italian government bonds to overweight from underweight, on both a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying Chart of the WeekAre These Market Stress Points Turning? Are These Market Stress Points Turning? Are These Market Stress Points Turning? The COVID-19 outbreak has become a full-blown global health crisis, with country after country imposing lockdowns on their populations to control the spread of the disease. The economic ramifications are now obvious: a certain deep global recession, but one of indeterminate length. The investment implications are also now clear: bear markets in global equities, credit and growth-sensitive currencies and commodities. There is a new bull market, however, in pessimism. Economic forecasters are tripping over themselves to offer up the most shocking estimate of the severity of the downturn. The IMF is now expecting a recession in 2020 “at least as bad” as during the global financial crisis. Wall Street investment banks are forecasting double-digit declines in US GDP growth during the second quarter. St. Louis Fed President Fed James Bullard wins the prize for the most gloomy prediction, suggesting that we could see a 30% US unemployment rate and a -50% (!) decline in US GDP growth in Q2. Investors have seen few positive headlines on the spread of the virus, resulting in a de-risking “dash for cash” that has impeded liquidity across equity, fixed income and currency markets. Global policymakers have responded with trillions of dollars of monetary and fiscal policy announcements designed to calm nervous markets while ensuring liquidity provision for temporarily shuttered businesses, of all sizes, facing painful layoff announcements. Chart 2Get Ready For Shockingly Weak Global Economic Data Get Ready For Shockingly Weak Global Economic Data Get Ready For Shockingly Weak Global Economic Data Have we seen enough stimulus to stop the market turmoil? In our view, three things must all occur for a sustainable bottom in global risk assets, and potentially bond yields, to unfold (Chart of the Week): Slowing growth in new COVID-19 infections outside China. As long as the global spread of the virus shows no signs of slowing down, it will be impossible for markets to ascertain the full hit to global growth from the outbreak. A cooling off of the surging US dollar. The greenback has soared 8% since March 9, and is wreaking havoc on global borrowers who have significant USD-denominated liabilities. Global financial market volatility must peak. Volatility spikes across all major asset classes have forced investors to de-risk portfolios; lower volatility will have the opposite effect. Of late, the news on all three fronts is tentatively more positive. The US DXY dollar index is off from the peak, the VIX index of US equity volatility is off the extreme highs and the number of new cases of COVID-19 in virus-ravaged Italy has declined for the past two days. While it is still early to call a lasting peak in these measures, it is potentially a sign of optimism coming at a time when economic confidence measures like the ZEW surveys are back to 2008 levels and a China-like collapse in activity is now expected in the US (Chart 2). We now think it is time to pick through the ashes of the global market rout and begin to add back some risk in global bond portfolios. We now think it is time to pick through the ashes of the global market rout and begin to add back some risk in global bond portfolios. After seeing the policy announcements of the past week, however, we are choosing to dip our toes back into the water in assets that now have direct central bank liquidity backstops – namely US investment grade corporates and Italian sovereign debt. The Fed Is Now Truly The Lender Of Last Resort … To Corporates The Fed unloaded their biggest of bazookas yesterday, expanding existing stimulus programs while introducing new initiatives that reach into parts of the US economy and financial markets previously untouched by the central bank. Specifically, the Fed did the following: Announcing unlimited quantitative easing (QE) for US Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) Increasing the size of money market and commercial paper liquidity programs announced last week, and expanding the range of eligible assets Adding commercial MBS (CMBS) to asset purchases, which was never done even in 2008 Reviving the 2008 crisis-era Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF) to make loans directly to companies, while introducing a new “Main Street Business Lending Program” that will fund small businesses directly (details are yet to be determined) Most significantly for bond investors, the Fed will begin buying corporate bonds, in both primary and secondary markets, while also providing direct lending to eligible companies through loans. This will be done through off-balance sheet Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV), initially funded with $10 billion from the US Treasury and levered up by the Fed to whatever amount is necessary The Fed primary market SPV will buy newly-issued bonds with credit ratings as low as BBB- and maturities of four years or less. Eligible issuers are US businesses with material operations in the United States, although the Fed noted that the list of companies in the program may be expanded in the future. Eligible issuers do not include companies that are expected to receive direct financial assistance from the US government (i.e. no buying of bonds from companies getting bailout funds). The most significant details of the Fed’s new primary market corporate bond buying program are the numerical limits of what can be purchased. Any eligible company can “borrow” from the Fed, though bond purchases or direct loans, an amount greater than the maximum outstanding debt (bonds plus loans) on any day over the past twelve months. Those percentages are determined by credit quality: 140% of all debt for AAA-rated issuers, 130% for AA-rated issuers, 120% for A-rated issuers and 110% for BBB-rated issuers. Since those percentages are all greater than 100, this effectively means that the Fed will allow eligible companies to roll over their entire stock of debt through this program, plus some net new borrowing. The Fed is even calling this “bridge financing for up to four years” in their official term sheets for the new program.1 Issuers can even defer interest payments on the funds borrowed from the Fed for up to six months, with the interest payments added to the final repayment amount (again, any company choosing this option can do no share buybacks or dividend payments). In addition to this direct lending to investment grade rated issuers, the Fed is introducing another SPV that will buy corporate bonds of eligible investment grade issuers in the secondary market. This will be for bonds with maturity of up to five years and credit ratings as low as BBB-, with a buying limit of 10% of the entire stock of eligible debt of any single company. This secondary market SPV will also buy investment grade bond ETFs, up to 20% the outstanding shares of any single ETF. All of these programs are set to run to September 30 of this year, with an option to extend as needed. The Fed’s new initiatives represent a new step for the central bank, providing direct lending to any company that needs it. The Fed had to do this through off-balance-sheet SPVs, since direct buying of corporates is not permitted under the Federal Reserve Act. Thus, it is not like the Fed’s QE programs that used to buy Treasuries and MBS – in fact, it is the US Treasury that is taking on the initial credit risk through its $10 billion funding of each SPV. In this sense, the Fed's new program is also different than the corporate bond QE programs of the ECB, Bank of England and Bank of Japan, where the credit risk is directly taken onto the central bank balance sheet. The purpose of these new corporate bond programs is two-fold: 1. To ensure that companies do not suffer a credit crunch, either by being unable to roll over maturing corporate debt in primary markets or by only doing so at prohibitively high yields and spreads 2. To ensure the proper functioning of US corporate bond markets, by providing liquidity to both cash bonds and related ETFs. By doing this, the Fed can help mitigate the severe tightening of financial conditions that has already occurred because of the credit selloff in recent weeks. Also, by helping to reduce the extreme price/spread volatility in higher-quality credit, the Fed may be hoping this can spill over into lower volatility of other asset classes which are at the historical extremes of the past quarter century (Chart 3). Both can help mitigate the second round effects of the virtual shutdown of the US economy that has taken place to contain the spread of COVID-19. Chart 3Few Places To Hide From Historically High Volatility Central Banks To Markets: Redefining "Whatever It Takes" Central Banks To Markets: Redefining "Whatever It Takes" The Fed’s unprecedented intervention in the US corporate bond market is a positive step that has improved the risk/reward profile for US investment grade credit, coming after a period of significant spread widening that has restored some value to the asset class. We will further discuss the implications of the Fed’s actions in a corporate bond Special Report that we will publish jointly next week with our colleagues at BCA US Bond Strategy. For now, however, the Fed’s unprecedented intervention in the US corporate bond market is a positive step that has improved the risk/reward profile for US investment grade credit, coming after a period of significant spread widening that has restored some value to the asset class (Chart 4). Chart 4A New Huge IG Liquidity Backstop From The Fed A New Huge IG Liquidity Backstop From The Fed A New Huge IG Liquidity Backstop From The Fed Could the Fed’s actions spill over into non-US credit, as well? Chart 5This Is A Global Widening Of Credit Spreads This Is A Global Widening Of Credit Spreads This Is A Global Widening Of Credit Spreads Chart 6Signs Of USD Funding Stress, But Nothing Like 2008 Signs Of USD Funding Stress, But Nothing Like 2008 Signs Of USD Funding Stress, But Nothing Like 2008 The COVID-19 crisis has resulted in credit spread widening across the world, especially so for the big borrowers of USD-denominated debt in the emerging markets and US shale oil industry (Chart 5). For those issuers, a weaker USD would be more positive development, as would higher oil prices. The Fed’s other monetary policy actions – cutting the funds rate to 0%, moving to unlimited QE for Treasuries and MBS, should be helping to weaken the US dollar. The problem, however, is that all other major central banks are now doing similar policy easings as well, with even the likes of the Reserve Bank of Australia and Reserve Bank of New Zealand now starting bond-buying QE programs. This exacerbates the strong USD problem, seen in the stresses in USD funding markets (Chart 6). Simply put, the Fed cannot generate easier financial conditions, both in the US and elsewhere, through a weaker USD. Thus, the Fed has to seek other ways to ease US financial conditions – like helping cap borrowing costs for investment grade US borrowers by direct intervention in those markets. Bottom Line: The Fed’s move into buying investment grade corporate debt, and providing term lending to corporates more broadly, has effectively eliminated the left tail of the return distribution for investment grade US credit. The ECB Is Moving Towards Being The Lender Of Last Resort – For Euro Area Sovereigns The Fed is not the only central bank that ramped up its asset purchases. The ECB also increased its existing Asset Purchase Program by a massive €750bn last week, across both sovereign and corporate debt. This new program was dubbed the “Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program” (PEPP) and is to take place over the rest of 2020 in order to help fight the negative impacts on the European economy and financial markets from the COVID-19 outbreak. The most important part of the announcement of the PEPP, however, was in the loosening of previous restrictions of the ECB’s €2.6 trillion Asset Purchase Program (APP). Greek bonds were included in the PEPP by allowing a waiver to the rules of the APP that forbid the inclusion of Greece in the funding program. Also, the ECB hinted in its statement announcing the new program that the self-imposed limits on the APP could be revised, if necessary, for the more “temporary” PEPP to help fight the COVID-19 crisis. That was a clear signal to the markets that the ECB could deviate from the “capital key” country weightings, and the 33% single sovereign issuer limit, that have governed the APP. This is very positive news for Italy, where COVID-19 has been particularly devastating and deadly, causing the entire country to be locked down to control its spread. The ECB could deviate from the “capital key” country weightings, and the 33% single sovereign issuer limit, that have governed the APP. This is very positive news for Italy, where COVID-19 has been particularly devastating and deadly, causing the entire country to be locked down to control its spread.  Already, Italy and the rest of the EU have been given a temporary waiver of the EU’s fiscal policy targets (government deficit no larger than 3% of GDP, government debt no larger than 60% of GDP). Now that the ECB is also willing to consider suspending its own limits on asset purchases, Italy has been given the “space” to run larger deficits without the market punishment of higher bond yields – especially with the ECB only owning around 20% of the stock of Italian government debt, well below the 33% single country APP limit (Chart 7). Chart 7The ECB Can Buy More Italian Debt, If Necessary Central Banks To Markets: Redefining "Whatever It Takes" Central Banks To Markets: Redefining "Whatever It Takes" Already, the ECB announcement triggered a sharp decline in Italian bond yields (and Greek yields, for that matter) and tightening of the spread between Italian and German bond yields. So far, the threat of the ECB buying more Italy has been enough to get private investors to buy more Italian bonds, similar to Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes” promise back in 2012. Draghi never had to buy a single bond to get the market to move in his favor then. In 2020, given the collapse in European growth seen so far in response to COVID-19 lockdowns, and the acute hit to the Italian economy from the virus, we suspect that Christine Lagarde will be far likely to actually buy more Italian debt – especially with even the hard-money Germans now engaged in deficit spending to stimulate the virus-stricken German economy. We interpret all this similarly to our read of the Fed’s buying of corporate debt – the ECB has changed the risk/reward profile of Italian government bonds by not only introducing the PEPP, but having it operated under different rules than the APP. Bottom Line: The ECB’s new bond buying program has significantly reduced the downside risk of Italian government debt over the next 6-12 months. Fixed Income Strategy Implications The Fed’s dramatic move into direct funding of US companies is a game changer for the US corporate bond market. By providing a full liquidity backstop to all companies, the Fed is ensuring that no US investment grade issuer will have to worry about rolling over their maturing debt in an illiquid and nervous corporate bond market. Simply put, the Fed has cut out the left side of the distribution of corporate bond returns for the foreseeable future. The same argument goes for the ECB’s increased purchases of government bonds, with promises to buy more Italian debt, if necessary. For these reasons, we are upgrading our recommended stance on US investment grade corporate debt, and Italian sovereign debt to overweight - both on a tactical (0-6 months) basis in our model bond portfolio and on a strategic (6-12 months) basis. Chart 8Upgrade US IG Corporates And Italian Sovereign Debt On CB Buying Upgrade US IG Corporates And Italian Sovereign Debt On CB Buying Upgrade US IG Corporates And Italian Sovereign Debt On CB Buying For these reasons, we are upgrading our recommended stance on US investment grade corporate debt, and Italian sovereign debt to overweight - both on a tactical (0-6 months) basis in our model bond portfolio and on a strategic (6-12 months) basis (Chart 8). We are focusing only on these two markets for now, as an initial step to increase our recommended exposure to fixed income risk assets. There may be a spillover into other credit markets and sovereign debt, like European investment grade and Spanish government bonds. For now, however, we are focusing on US investment grade and Italy, while keeping underweights in other credit markets as a hedge against a renewed flare-up of COVID-19 related market risk. Bottom Line: Upgrade US investment grade corporates to overweight from neutral, and upgrade Italian government bonds to overweight from underweight, on both a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The details of the Fed’s new corporate bond buying programs can be found here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20200323b1.pdf  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20200323b2.pdf Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Central Banks To Markets: Redefining "Whatever It Takes" Central Banks To Markets: Redefining "Whatever It Takes" Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear Client, This week, I provided an update through a webcast on the economic and financial market outlook in the era of the COVID-19 outbreak. You can access the webcast here. In lieu of our regular report this week, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan shows why the most widely cited estimate of the US neutral rate of interest, the Laubach & Williams estimate of “R-star”, is very likely wrong and that the true neutral rate may be higher than many investors believe. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. I hope you find the report insightful. Please note that next week we will be publishing our quarterly Strategy Outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the real neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even once economic recovery takes hold unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). This report revisits the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrates why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. We also outline an inferential approach that investors can use to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. The core conclusion for investors is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, investors should avoid dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about yields as they may rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. Feature Over the past several weeks financial markets have moved rapidly to price in a global recession stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. As financial market participants began to turn to policy makers for support, eyes focused first on the Federal Reserve, and then fiscal authorities. Earlier this week, the ECB joined the party and announced aggressive further measures of its own. When responding to the Fed’s return to the lower bound and its other recent monetary policy decisions, many market participants have expressed the view that the Fed is largely impotent to deal with a global pandemic. There are three elements to this view. The first is that interest rate cuts are ill equipped to stimulate domestic demand if quarantine measures or other forms of “social distancing” are in effect. The second element is that the Fed has only been capable of delivering a fraction of the reduction in interest rates compared to what has occurred in response to previous contractions. The third aspect of this view is that because the neutral rate of interest is so much lower now than it was in the past, Fed rate cuts will not be as stimulative as they were before. Chart 1Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate While we at least partly agree with the first and second elements of this view, we feel strongly that the third is flawed. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013,1 and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. This time series, which is regularly updated by the New York Fed,2 suggests that the real fed funds rate reached neutral territory in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart 1). With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even beyond the near term unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). In this Special Report we revisit the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrate why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. Our analysis does not reveal a precise alternative estimate of the neutral rate, although we do provide some inferential perspective on how investors may be able to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. However, the core insight emanating from our report, particularly for US fixed income investors, is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once economic activity recovers. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise may be larger than many investors currently expect. Demystifying The LW R-star Estimate The LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest has gained credibility for three reasons. First, as noted above, the evolution of the series fits with the secular stagnation narrative re-popularized by Larry Summers. Second, the series is essentially sponsored by the Federal Reserve even if it is not officially part of the Fed’s forecasting framework, as its two creators are long-time Fed employees (Thomas Laubach is a director of the Fed’s Board of Governors, and John Williams is the current President of the New York Fed). But, in our view, there is a third important reason that global investors have accepted the LW R-star estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the methodology used to generate the estimate is extremely technically complex, and thus is difficult for most investors to penetrate. Much of the technical complexity of the LW estimate is centered around the use of a statistical procedure called a Kalman filter (“KF”). Simply described, the KF is an algorithm that tries to estimate an unobservable variable based on 1) an idea of how the unobservable variable might relate to an observable variable (the “measurement equation”), and 2) an idea of how the unobservable variable might change through time (the “transition equation”). Through a repeated process of simulating the unobserved variable based on a set of assumptions, the KF is able to compare predicted results to actual results on an observation-by-observation basis, and use that information to generate ever more reliable future estimates of the unobserved variable (Chart 2). Chart 2A Very Simplified Overview Of The Kalman Filter Algorithm Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis We acknowledge that a full technical treatment of the Kalman Filter as it relates to the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest is beyond the scope of this report, and we provide a more technical overview in Box 1. But what emerges from a detailed analysis of the model is that the Kalman Filter jointly estimates R-star, potential GDP growth, potential GDP, and the variable “z”, the determinants of R-star that are not explained by potential GDP growth. As we will highlight in the next section, this joint estimation of these four variables is a crucial aspect of the model, because a valid estimate of R-star necessitates a valid estimate of the remaining variables. Box 1 A Technical Overview Of The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Debunking The LW R-star Estimate Before criticizing the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest, it is important for us to note that we have the utmost respect for the Federal Reserve and its research methods. We fully acknowledge that the LW R-star estimation is rooted in solid economic theory, and we have identified no technical errors in the setup of the LW model. Nevertheless, valid analytical efforts sometimes lead to problematic real-world results, and there are two key reasons to believe that the Kalman filter in the LW model is almost certainly misspecifying R-star, at least in terms of its estimate over the past two decades. The first reason relates to the sensitivity of the model to the interval of estimation (the period over which R-star is estimated). Chart 3 presents the range of quarterly estimates of R-star since 2005, along with the difference between the high and low end of the range in the second panel. The chart shows that while previous estimates of R-star have generally been stable for values ranging between the early-1980s and 2006/2007, pre-1980 estimates have varied quite substantially and we have seen material revisions to the estimates over the past decade. Q1 2018 serves as an excellent example: in that quarter R-star was estimated to be 0.14%; today, the Q1 2018 R-star estimate sits at 0.92%. Chart 3Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates   However, Table 1 and Chart 4 highlight the real instability of the Kalman filter estimation by demonstrating the effect of varying the starting point of the model (please see Box 2 for a brief description of how our estimation of R-star using the LW approach differs slightly from the original procedure). Laubach & Williams originally estimated R-star beginning in Q1 1961; Table 1 shows what happens to today’s estimate of R-star simply by incrementally varying the starting point of the model from Q1 1958 to Q4 1979. Table 1Alternative Current LW Estimates Of R-star By Model Starting Point Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Chart 4Alternative Starting Points Produce Wildly Different Estimates Of R-star Today Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Box 2 The Laubach & Williams R-star Model With Simplified Inflation Expectations Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis The table highlights that the model fails to even generate a result in a majority of the cases (only 39 out of 88 of the model runs were error-free). In addition, Chart 4 shows that of the successful estimates of R-star using the LW procedure and alternate starting dates of the model, the estimate of R-star today varies from -2% (in one case) to +2%. Excluding the one extremely negative outlier results in an effective estimate range of 0% to 2%, but the key point for investors is that this range is massive and underscores that the original model’s estimate of R-star today is heavily and unduly influenced by the interval of estimation. Investors should also note that of all of the alternative estimates of R-star today shown in Chart 4, the estimate using the original interval is very much on the low end of the distribution. The second (and most important) reason to believe that the LW estimate is misspecifying R-star is that the output gap estimate generated by the model is almost certainly invalid, at least over the past two decades. Chart 5 presents the LW output gap estimate alongside an average of the CBO, OECD, and IMF estimates of the gap; panel 1 shows the official current LW output gap estimate, whereas panel 2 shows the range of output gap estimates that are generated using the different estimation intervals highlighted in Table 1 and Chart 4. Given that the Kalman filter in the LW model jointly determines R-star and the output gap (by way of estimating potential output via estimating potential GDP growth) and that these estimates are dependent on each other, Chart 5 highlights that in order to believe the LW R-star estimate investors must believe three things: That the US economy was chronically below potential in the late-1990s when the unemployment rate was below 5%, real GDP growth averaged nearly 5%, and the equity market was booming, That output exceeded potential in 2004/2005 by a magnitude not seen since the late-1970s / early-1980s despite an average unemployment rate, That the 2008/2009 US recession was not particularly noteworthy in terms of its deviation from potential output, and that the economy had returned to potential output by 2010/2011 when the unemployment rate was in the range of 8-9%. Chart 5The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades While we do not believe any of these three statements, the third is especially unlikely. Chart 6 highlights that the economic expansion from 2009 – 2020 was the weakest on record in the post-war era in terms of average annual real per capita GDP growth. To us, this is a clear symptom of a chronic deficiency in aggregate demand, and that it is essentially unreasonable to argue that the economy was operating at full employment prior to 2014/2015. This means that the Kalman filter is generating incorrect and unreliable estimates of the output gap, which means in turn that the filter’s estimation of R-star is almost assuredly wrong. Chart 6The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis How Can Investors Tell What The Neutral Rate Is? An Inferential Approach Table 2 presents the sensitivity of the original Q1 1961 LW estimate of R-star to a series of counterfactual scenarios for inflation, real GDP growth, nominal interest rates, and import and oil prices since mid-2009. While these scenarios do not in any way improve the validity of the LW R-star estimate, they do help clarify the theoretical basis of the model and they help reveal how investors may infer whether the neutral rate of interest is higher or lower than prevailing market rates, and whether it is rising or falling. Table 2 highlights that today’s estimate of R-star using the original LW approach is mostly sensitive to our counterfactual scenarios for growth and interest rates, but not inflation or oil prices. Shifting down import price growth also has a meaningful effect on R-star, but since core import price growth has been particularly weak over the past several years (Chart 7), it seems unreasonable to suggest that they have been abnormally high and thus “explain” a low R-star estimate today. Table 2Sensitivity Of Current LW R-star Estimate To Counterfactual Scenarios (2009 - Present) Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Chart 7Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Table 2 essentially highlights that the entire question of the neutral rate of interest over the past decade, and the core contradiction that led to the re-emergence of the secular stagnation thesis, can effectively be boiled down to the following simple question: “Why hasn’t US economic growth been stronger this cycle, given that interest rates have been so low?” Based on the (hopefully uncontroversial) view that interest rates influence economic activity and that economic activity influences inflation, we propose the following checklist for investors to ask themselves in order to not only determine the answer to this important question, but to help identify whether R-star in any given country is likely higher or lower than existing policy rates at any given point in time. Are interest rates above or below the prevailing level of economic growth? Are interest rates rising or falling, and how intensely? Are there identifiable non-monetary shocks (positive or negative) that appear to be influencing economic activity? Is private sector credit growth keeping pace with economic growth? Are debt service burdens in the economy high or low? The first question reflects the most basic view of R-star, which is that the real neutral rate of interest should be equal to, or at least closely related to, the potential growth rate of the economy, ceteris paribus. Questions 2 through 5 attempt to determine whether ceteris paribus holds. In terms of how the answers to these questions relate to identifying the neutral rate, consider two economies, “Economy A” and “Economy B” (Chart 8). Economy A has broadly stable or slightly rising interest rates that are well below prevailing rates of economic growth (questions 1 & 2), no obvious beneficial shocks to domestic demand from fiscal policy or other factors (question 3), and strong private sector credit growth that is perhaps above or strongly above the current pace of GDP growth (question 4). Chart 8''Economy A'', Versus ''Economy B'' Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Inferentially, it would seem that interest rates in this hypothetical economy are below R-star today. Question 5 is in our list because the more that active private sector leveraging occurs (thus pushing up debt burdens), the more that we would expect R-star in the future to fall. This is because debt payments as a share of income cannot rise forever, and we would expect that the capacity of economy A’s central bank to raise interest rates in the future are negatively related to economy A’s private sector debt service burden today. Now, imagine another economy (“Economy B”) with interest rates well below average rates of economic growth, an interest rate trend that is flat-to-down, no identifiable non-monetary policy shocks that are restricting aggregate demand, persistently sluggish credit growth, and high private sector debt service burdens in the past. If economy B is growing (even sluggishly) and not in the middle of a recession, it would seem that prevailing interest rates are below R-star, but not significantly so. In this scenario it would seem reasonable to conclude that R-star in economy B has fallen non-trivially below its potential growth rate, and that interest rate increases are likely to move monetary policy into restrictive territory earlier than otherwise would be the case. Is The United States “Economy B”? From the perspective of some investors, our description of economy B above perfectly captures the experience of the US over the past decade: an extremely low Fed funds rate, sluggish to weak growth and inflation, all the result of a huge build-up in leverage and debt service burdens during the last economic cycle. We do not doubt that R-star fell in the US for some period of time during the global financial crisis and in the early phase of the economic recovery. But we doubt that it is as low today as the secular stagnation narrative would imply, in large part because it ignores several important aspects concerning questions 2 through 5 noted above. Chart 9Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non- Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies: Over the past 12 years, there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnect between growth and interest rates: 1) a prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014, 2) the euro area sovereign debt crisis, 3) fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 (Chart 9), 4) the US dollar / oil price shock of 2014, and 5) the recent trade war between the US and China. Several of these shocks have been policy-driven, and in the case of austerity the negative consequences of that policy has led to a lasting change in thinking among fiscal authorities (outside of Japan) that is unlikely to reverse in the near-future. Private sector credit growth: Chart 10 highlights the extent of household deleveraging noted above by showing the growth in total household liabilities over the past decade alongside income growth. Panel 2 shows the leveraging trend of firms, as represented by the nonfinancial corporate sector debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart 10 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it is now growing again and has largely closed the gap with income growth. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector has clearly leveraged itself over the course of the expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. While it is true that firms have largely leveraged themselves to buy back stock instead of significantly increasing capital expenditures, in our view this reflects the fact that US consumer demand was impaired for several years due to deleveraging. We doubt that firms would have altered their capital structures to this degree if they did not view interest rates as extremely low. Chart 10Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Debt service burdens: Chart 11 highlights that US household debt service burdens were at very elevated levels prior to the financial crisis, suggesting that the neutral rate did fall for some time following the recession. But today, the debt burden facing households is the lowest it has been in the past 40 years due to both rate reductions and deleveraging, arguing against the view that household debt levels will structurally weigh on interest rates in the years to come. Chart 12 shows that the picture is different for nonfinancial corporations, as the substantial leveraging noted above has indeed raised debt service burdens for firms. However, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio remains 400 basis points below early-2000 levels when excess corporate sector liabilities had a clear impact on the economy, suggesting that the Fed’s capacity to raise interest rates still exists following the onset of economic recovery if corporate sector credit growth does not rise sharply relative to GDP over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 11The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low Chart 12Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise The intensity of recent interest rate changes: Finally, many investors have pointed to sluggish housing activity over the past three years as evidence of a low neutral rate. However, Chart 13 highlights that the rise in the 30-year US mortgage rate from late-2016 to late-2018 was one of the largest two-year changes in US history, and Chart 14 shows that the growth in household mortgage credit did not fall below its trend during this period until Q4 2018, when the US stock market fell 20% from its high in response to the economic consequences of the US/China trade war. Chart 14 also shows that mortgage credit growth responded sharply to a recent reduction in interest rates. All in all, Charts 13 & 14 cast doubt on the notion that the level of mortgage rates over the past three years reached restrictive territory. Chart 13Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Chart 14A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market Investment Conclusions In the face of a global pandemic and an attendant global recession this year, the idea of eventual Fed rate hikes and the notion that the US economy will be able to tolerate them likely seems preposterous to many investors. We agree that over the coming 6-12 months US Treasury yields are unlikely to rise; even at current levels of the 10-year Treasury yield, we are reluctant to call a trough. Chart 15US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade However, Chart 15 highlights that over a long-term time horizon, the bond market is now essentially priced for a repeat of the ten-year path of the Fed funds rate following the global financial crisis. While some investors will view this as a reasonable expectation in the face of what they see as a persistent and unexplainable gap between growth and interest rates over the past decade, we think this gap is explainable and we highly doubt that a pandemic with minimal mortality risk to the working age population and the young will cause the US economy to be afflicted with active consumer deleveraging lasting 4 to 6-years, substantial and wide-ranging fiscal austerity, persistently rising trade tariffs, and sharply lower oil prices. So while we agree that the US economy will be substantially cyclically affected by COVID-19, US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise following the upcoming recession may be larger than many investors currently believe.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    "IMF Fourteenth Annual Research Conference in Honor of Stanley Fischer," Washington DC, November 8, 2013. 2    "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis

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