Inflation/Deflation

Highlights Duration: The easing of shelter-in-place restrictions and resultant improvement in economic growth will cause US bond yields to rise somewhat during the next couple of months. However, the magnitude of economic improvement will be modest, and the Fed’s dovish rate guidance will temper the severity of any yield back-up. Municipal Bonds: The less-than-generous pricing offered through the Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility will not help push muni yields lower from current levels. However, very attractive valuations and the expectation of federal government relief justify an overweight allocation to the sector. Inflation & TIPS: We are not worried about significant inflation pressures any time soon. But equally, we don’t see 12-month headline CPI falling much below zero this year. This means that TIPS are cheap relative to nominal Treasuries. Treasury Yield Outlook Chart 1Taking A Breather Taking A Breather Taking A Breather Bond yields have been relatively stable since early April, and the Treasury index has performed roughly in-line with cash for most of the second quarter. This of course follows on the heels of massive outperformance in Q1 (Chart 1). Nonetheless, the recent stabilization in yields raises the question of whether bond returns are approaching a cyclical peak, or merely experiencing a temporary lull. Yields Are Biased Higher In The Near-Term … Our view is that a modest bond sell-off is likely during the next couple of months for four reasons. First, high-frequency global growth indicators are finally starting to hook up (Chart 2). Specifically, we like to track the CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index, emerging market currencies and the relative performance of cyclical versus defensive US equities. All three indicators track bond yields closely, and all three are showing signs of bottoming. Chart 2High-Frequency Global Growth Indicators High-Frequency Global Growth Indicators High-Frequency Global Growth Indicators Second, FLASH PMI estimates for May showed broad-based improvement compared to the April lows. Specifically, FLASH Manufacturing PMIs for the United States, Euro Area and United Kingdom all increased compared to April (Chart 3A). Of countries that have FLASH PMI estimates, only Japan saw a continued decline in May. If these numbers are to be believed, they suggest that April might indeed represent the global economic trough. We are still waiting for May data from China and the rest of the emerging world, important economic blocs that together account for 47% of the Global Manufacturing PMI. But China’s PMI, at least, has already rebounded off its February low (Chart 3B). China’s number will likely pressure the global index higher when it is released next week. Chart 3APMI Estimates For May PMI Estimates For May PMI Estimates For May Chart 3BChina's PMI Is Close To Neutral China's PMI Is Close To Neutral China's PMI Is Close To Neutral Third, high-frequency US economic data are consistent with an economy that is close to, or perhaps already passed, its economic trough. Initial jobless claims are still very high but have printed successively lower since peaking seven weeks ago. Similarly, the New York Fed’s Weekly Economic Index remains at its all-time low but is no longer in free fall (Chart 4).1   Chart 4US Economic Indicators US Economic Indicators US Economic Indicators Finally, but also most importantly, the slightly better data noted above are the result of economies that are slowly starting to re-open as daily new COVID cases roll over. This is particularly the case in Europe and North America (Chart 5). Restrictions will probably continue to ease during the next couple of months, meaning that both the economic data and bond yields are biased higher. Chart 5Global COVID-19 Cases Global COVID-19 Cases Global COVID-19 Cases … But Don’t Expect Anything More Than A Modest Sell-Off Chart 6Fed's Forward Guidance Quickly Dampened Vol Fed's Forward Guidance Quickly Dampened Vol Fed's Forward Guidance Quickly Dampened Vol However, there are also a few reasons to not get too bearish on US bonds. First, it is entirely possible – and even likely – that COVID cases will start to increase as shelter-in-place restrictions are lifted. If these second waves of the infection aren’t adequately suppressed via testing and contact tracing then restrictions could be re-instated by the fall, putting renewed downward pressure on bond yields. Also, while new COVID cases are declining in many parts of Europe and North America, several large emerging markets are still seeing cases accelerate. Brazil and India, for example, have yet to see a peak in new cases, while Russia’s new cases have just started to roll over (Chart 5, bottom 2 panels). Together, Brazil, Russia and India account for 8% of the Global Manufacturing PMI. Slow growth in those nations will significantly dampen any global economic recovery. On top of uncertainty surrounding the speed of any nascent global economic recovery, bond yields will also be held down by the Fed’s highly credible zero-lower-bound interest rate guidance. As we discussed in last week’s report, large bond sell-offs are almost always associated with a significant hawkish shift in monetary policy.2 This will not occur any time soon. In fact, the New York Fed’s latest Survey of Market Participants, taken just prior to the April 28-29 FOMC meeting, reveals that the median market participant expects the fed funds rate to stay at its current level at least until the end of 2022!3 On the one hand, such depressed expectations suggest scope for a massive re-pricing at some point in the future, but this will not occur until inflation forces the Fed to act. We agree with the survey respondents that this is a long way off. While new COVID cases are declining in many parts of Europe and North America, several large emerging markets are still seeing cases accelerate. It’s also interesting to note the speed at which the market has bought into the Fed’s zero-lower-bound rate guidance during the past two months. Chart 6 shows that after the Fed first cut rates to zero in December 2008, it still took several years for implied interest rate volatility to reach historically low levels. That is, the market was not initially convinced that rates would stay at zero for the long haul. In contrast, interest rate volatility has plunged dramatically since the Fed cut rates to zero on March 15. This time around, the market has been quick to buy into the Fed’s dovish message. Bottom Line: The easing of shelter-in-place restrictions and resultant improvement in economic growth will cause US bond yields to rise somewhat during the next couple of months. However, the magnitude of economic improvement will be modest, and the Fed’s dovish rate guidance will temper the severity of any yield back-up. Additionally, we can’t rule out the resumption of lockdown restrictions in the fall, should COVID cases rise during the summer. In terms of strategy, nimble investors may want to position for higher yields in the near-term. However, given the risks involved, we prefer to keep portfolio duration close to benchmark while implementing duration-neutral curve steepeners that will profit from rising yields. Specifically, we recommend going long the 5-year note and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes.4 Munis Carry Some Risk, But Offer A Lot Of Value Chart 7Munis Cheap Versus Treasuries Munis Cheap Versus Treasuries Munis Cheap Versus Treasuries Our spread product investment strategy during the recession has been to favor those sectors that: a)  Offer attractive yields/spreads b)  Benefit from one or more of the Fed’s emergency lending facilities Municipal bonds check both of those boxes. In terms of value, Aaa-rated municipal bond yields are consistently above Treasury yields across the entire maturity spectrum (Chart 7), a yield advantage that becomes especially pronounced when you factor in munis’ tax-exempt status. There is even a strong case for tax-exempt municipal bonds relative to corporate bonds. Table 1A shows the yield differential between tax-exempt municipal bonds and corporate bonds that carry the same credit rating and maturity. Not surprisingly, municipal bond yields are below corporate yields in most cases, with A-rated yields and longer-maturity Baa-rated yields being glaring exceptions. To put those yield differentials in context, Table 1B shows the breakeven effective tax rate for each muni/corporate combination. For example, the breakeven effective tax rate between Aaa-rated 5-year municipal and corporate bonds is 23%. This means that an investor will earn more after-tax yield in the municipal bond if his effective tax rate is above 23%, and less if it is below. It is apparent that breakeven effective tax rates are quite low, especially at the bottom-end of the credit spectrum. Table 1ASpread Between Municipal Bonds & Credit Index Yields* (BPs) Bonds Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens Bonds Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens Table IBMuni/Credit Breakeven Effective Tax Rate* (%) Bonds Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens Bonds Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens As for our second criterion, the municipal sector clearly benefits from the Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF). Through this facility, the Fed lends directly to eligible state & local governments for up to three years.5 However, there is a problem with the MLF: The cost. The Fed recently revealed that it will charge a rate of OIS + 150 bps for new loans taken out by Aaa-rated issuers through the MLF. That fixed spread rises as the issuer’s credit rating declines. Aa2 issuers are charged OIS + 175 bps, A2 issuers are charged OIS + 250 bps, etc…6 Chart 8MLF Pricing Doesn't Help Muni Investors MLF Pricing Doesn't Help Muni Investors MLF Pricing Doesn't Help Muni Investors For each credit rating, the rate available through the MLF is significantly higher than the actual market yield (Chart 8). This means that the MLF currently places a cap on how high municipal yields can rise, but it doesn’t actively pressure them lower. This stands in stark contrast to the rates offered through the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) that are considerably below market yields on Aaa-rated CMBS and similar to market yields on Aaa-rated consumer ABS. Uncharitable MLF pricing structure aside, we think there are several reasons to remain overweight municipal bonds within US fixed income portfolios. First, the Fed is already facing criticism about the MLF rates and it could lower them in the near future. It has already shown a willingness to alter its facilities in response to market pressure. The MLF initially only made loans with maturities of 2 years or less, now it offers loans of up to 3 years. Second, direct federal aid to state & local governments was the centerpiece of the relief bill that recently passed through the House of Representatives. That bill will not get through the Senate in its current form, but another federal government relief package is forthcoming and it will almost certainly include money for state & local governments. There is even a strong case for tax-exempt municipal bonds relative to corporate bonds. Third, despite the massive challenges ahead, state governments entered the present crisis with relatively strong budget positions and well stocked rainy day funds (Chart 9). State & local governments will obviously be forced to make some tough budget decisions in the coming months, but there is no doubt that they are in a better position to do so than they were prior to the last two recessions. Chart 9State Rainy Day Funds State Rainy Day Funds State Rainy Day Funds Bottom Line: The less-than-generous pricing offered through the Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility will not help push muni yields lower from current levels. However, very attractive valuations and the expectation of federal government relief justify an overweight allocation to the sector. Deflation A Bigger Risk Than Inflation, But TIPS Still Make Sense Chart 10Energy Inflation May Have Troughed Energy Inflation May Have Troughed Energy Inflation May Have Troughed April’s CPI report saw year-over-year headline inflation fall to 0.4%, the lowest level since 2015. Deflation is clearly a bigger risk than inflation this year, but we would argue that TIPS prices are so beaten down that the sector still offers value. This is true over investment horizons as short as one year. We calculate that headline CPI inflation would have to come in below -0.85% over the next 12 months for a hold-to-maturity position in TIPS to underperform a similar position in nominal Treasuries (Chart 10). Could we actually see that much deflation during the next 12 months? It is possible, but we’d bet against it. First, the collapse in oil prices and energy inflation has been an important driver of falling inflation during the past couple of months (Chart 10, panel 2). But with oil prices having already dipped into negative territory and massive production cuts about to come on board, energy inflation may have already troughed for the year.7 At the very least, with oil prices already so low there is much less room for them to decline and thus less scope for further energy CPI deceleration. Second, the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) was the last time that headline CPI inflation went significantly below zero. Year-over-year core inflation had to get to 0.6% for that to happen. This year, 12-month core CPI dropped to 1.4% in April from 2.1%, but the trimmed mean measure only fell from 2.4% to 2.2% (Chart 10, bottom panel). During the GFC, both core and trimmed mean inflation fell in tandem. This gives us some reason to doubt the persistence of core CPI’s recent drop. Headline CPI inflation would have to come in below -0.85% over the next 12 months for a hold-to-maturity position in TIPS to underperform a similar position in nominal Treasuries. Finally, shelter accounts for roughly one third of headline inflation. Year-over-year shelter CPI troughed at -0.6% during the GFC. It also dropped sharply in April – from 3.0% to 2.6% – but it still has a long way to go to get back to GFC levels (Chart 11). We don’t think that shelter inflation will move back into negative territory, and without that drag it is hard to see 12-month headline CPI falling much below zero. Chart 11Shelter Is One Third Of CPI Shelter Is One Third Of CPI Shelter Is One Third Of CPI Rental vacancies are the number one driver of shelter CPI. The rental vacancy rate has only been updated through the end of March, and April’s data will definitely show a spike. However, the vacancy rate is starting from below 7%. The vacancy rate needed to spend several years hovering around 10% or higher before shelter CPI saw its big drop in 2008/09 (Chart 11, panel 2). The National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC)’s Apartment Market Diffusion Index also does a good job predicting shelter inflation. Shelter inflation tends to fall when the index is below 50 and rise when it is above 50 (Chart 11, bottom panel). The Diffusion Index experienced a massive drop in April, back to GFC levels. However, it remains to be seen whether it will recover rapidly or remain below 50 for ten consecutive quarters like it did between 2007 and 2010. In fact, there is some reason to believe that the recovery might be fairly quick. Other data released by the NMHC show that as of May 20 2020, 90.8% of renters had made their monthly payments for May. In April 2020, 89.2% of renters had made their monthly payments by the 20th of the month. Unsurprisingly, both of these figures are below what was seen last year: In 2019, about 93% of renters had made their April and May monthly payments by the 20th of the month. But the fact that May 2020 data show a small increase compared to April indicates that the situation is not worsening, and it may in fact be getting better. Bottom Line: We are not worried about significant inflation pressures any time soon. But equally, we don’t see 12-month headline CPI falling much below zero this year. This means that TIPS are cheap relative to nominal Treasuries. We recommend overweighting TIPS versus nominal Treasuries across the entire maturity spectrum. We also recommend implementing TIPS curve steepeners.8 Appendix - Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. Right now, that means we are overweight corporate bonds rated Ba and higher, Aaa-rated Agency and non-agency CMBS, Aaa-rated consumer ABS and municipal bonds. We are underweight residential mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds rated B and lower. The below Table tracks the performance of these different bond sectors since the Fed’s March 23 announcement. We will use this Table to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy's success. Table 2Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Bonds Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens Bonds Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Weekly Economic Index is a composite of 10 daily and weekly indicators of real economic activity. For more details on its construction please see https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/weekly-economic-index 2 Please see US  Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Treasury Market Amid Surging Supply”, dated May 12, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3  https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/markets/survey/2020/apr-2020-smp-results.pdf 4 For more details on our recommended yield curve positioning please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Life At The Zero Bound”, dated March 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on the MLF and the Fed’s other emergency lending facilities please see US Investment Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures”, dated April 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For full pricing details please see https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20200511a1.pdf  7 For more details on BCA’s outlook for oil prices please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “US Politics Will Drive 2H20 Oil Prices”, dated May 21, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 For more details on our recommendation for TIPS curve steepeners please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Feature The crisis surrounding COVID-19 eventually will pass and hopefully life gradually will return to some degree of normality. Even if it is not possible to completely eradicate the virus, we will have to learn to live with it, assuming effective treatments and vaccines become available. The alternative, that no treatments or vaccines will be developed, seems excessively gloomy. But that does not mean economic conditions will quickly return to pre-crisis levels. The severity of the current contraction guarantees that economies initially will see one or two quarters of very strong growth when businesses resume operations. However, it is hard to be positive about the pace of recovery beyond that initial spurt. The job losses have been horrendous, and they will not all be temporary. A University of Chicago study estimated that 42% of recent job layoffs will end up being permanent.1 Many businesses – especially small ones - may decide against reopening given the uncertainty about future revenue growth and/or the restrictions imposed by new physical distancing procedures. Many small businesses are financially fragile with the median company holding less than one month’s cash on hand.2 According to OpenTable, 25% of US restaurants will close permanently. Against this background, considerable fiscal stimulus will not deliver a strong recovery – it merely limits the severity of the downturn. Any short-term forecasts are highly speculative because so much depends on the path of infections. At the bullish end of the spectrum, perhaps the rate of infection will continue to ease in most major countries and a vaccine will become widely available before the end of the year. At the other extreme, the rate of infection could spike back up as economies reopen, leading to a more virulent second wave later this year. And if you want to be really bearish, the virus may mutate, preventing the development of an effective vaccine. After all, there is no vaccine against the common cold and the vaccine for the regular flu has not eradicated that virus. Opinions about the outlook are all over the map and the sad truth is that nobody really knows what will happen. It all underscores the huge challenges facing governments as they try to judge the appropriate pace of restarting economies, opening schools and relaxing social interactions. In this report, I want to look beyond the fog-shrouded near-term outlook and consider the extent to which there may be a lasting impact on economic trends. Specifically, I will focus on the implications of Covid-19 on long-run economic growth, inflation and monetary/fiscal policy. Will Potential Growth Be Infected? Over the long run, an economy expands at its potential rate which is dictated by the growth in the labor force and productivity. How will the Covid-19 crisis affect these trends in the years ahead? As is well known, declining birth rates have led to sharply slowing labor force growth in all the major economies and this trend will continue for at least the next 20 years (Chart 1). The loss of life due to the virus is tragic but is not large enough to have a major impact on population growth. Moreover, the most seriously affected age cohort – those 70 and above – generally are not in the labor force. But two other trends could affect labor force growth: a shift in participation rates and policies toward immigration. The participation rate measures the percentage of the population aged 16 and over that are employed or actively seeking work. In other words, it is the labor force as a percent of the working-age population, typically broken down into different age cohorts. The US participation rate has plunged as a result of recent unprecedented job losses (Chart 2). While it will spike up as the economy reopens, it is far from clear that it will quickly return to pre-crisis levels. Many job losses will be permanent leading to a rise in the number of discouraged workers who give up on seeking new employment. This would depress future labor force growth relative to its pre-crisis expected trend. Chart 1A Poor Demogrpahic Backdrop For Growth A Poor Demogrpahic Backdrop For Growth A Poor Demogrpahic Backdrop For Growth Chart 2The US Labor Participation Rate The US Labor Participation Rate The US Labor Participation Rate   For many developed countries, immigration provides an important offset to the slow growth or even decline in domestic populations. For the US, projections from the UN imply that net migration will account for more than half of total population growth in the next decade, rising to almost two-thirds in the 2030s, assuming the net migration rate holds at its past rate of around three people per 1000 of population. Even before Covid-19, there was a growing backlash against high levels of immigration in the US and several European countries and this could now be reinforced. Thus, in a post-virus world, labor force growth could be slightly lower than previously projected in some areas. What about productivity, the more important driver of economic growth? Forced shutdowns have required businesses to adapt their operations to survive when revenues have evaporated. This undoubtedly has led to the discovery of several ways to boost efficiency and that should be a permanent change for the better. Moreover, there is now an added incentive to accelerate the adoption of labor-saving and productivity-enhancing artificial intelligence technologies. On the other hand, some changes will be negative for productivity. Factory closures in China clearly highlighted the downside of supply chains being dependent on a small number of distant providers. Companies in the west had increased sourcing from China and other emerging countries for a good reason: it saved a lot money and was thus good for productivity and profits. After all, productivity is all about delivering goods and services of the same or better quality at a lower unit cost. Chart 3Profit Margins Are Headed Lower Profit Margins Are Headed Lower Profit Margins Are Headed Lower It seems inevitable that many companies will seek to establish more reliable supply chains and in some cases that will involve onshoring – i.e. bringing back production to home countries. This will bring advantages, but costs will be higher and profit margins correspondingly lower. Profit margins had already peaked from their unsustainably high level and further sharp declines are in prospect. (Chart 3). Globalization has been a very positive force for productivity and a reversal has the opposite effect. A second problem for future productivity is that the outlook for business investment has taken a turn for the worse. The severe damage to corporate balance sheets means that many companies will be less willing and able to embark on new capital spending initiatives. A reduced pace of capital spending will have a negative impact on future productivity growth. A third issue is that new safety protocols will introduce friction into the economic system, much in the way that the response to 9/11 made air travel a much more tedious business. If businesses must take measures to ensure greater physical distancing for both employees and customers, that implies an increased cost with little obvious benefit to efficiency. Finally, another legacy of the virus will be greater government involvement in the economy, something that is not conducive to increased productivity. And in many countries, there is likely to be a shift of resources into healthcare. That may be highly desirable from the perspective of social welfare but it implies fewer resources for other areas. Overall, the above discussion suggests that potential GDP growth in the developed economies will be negatively impacted by the Covid-19 crisis. It is hard to quantify the impact but even a modest reduction in annual growth can have large cumulative effects over time. Economies can grow above potential rates for a while if they are force-fed with rapid credit growth, but that era has passed. The shock of the economic and financial meltdown of 2007-09 was enough to end the love-affair with debt on the part of consumers in the US and many other countries. This is highlighted by the weakness in US mortgage demand in the past decade, despite record-low mortgage rates (Chart 4). At the end of 2019, mortgage applications were no higher than 20 years previously, despite a record-low unemployment rate and the 30-year mortgage rate falling from 8.5% to 3.5% over the period. While mortgage demand and thus household sector credit growth remained strong in the past decade in economies such as Canada, Australia and some European countries, the current crisis likely means that the Debt Supercycle finally has died in those places as well (Chart 5). Financial caution on the part of consumers and many businesses will push up private sector saving rates in the years ahead. Rising private sector saving rates will make it easier to finance large budget deficits but argue against a return to strong economic growth. Chart 4Weak US Mortgage Demand Despite Record Low Yields Weak US Mortgage Demand Despite Record Low Yields Weak US Mortgage Demand Despite Record Low Yields Chart 5Household Debt: Peaked or Peaking Household Debt: Peaked or Peaking Household Debt: Peaked or Peaking   Inflation Or Deflation? Chart 6A Deflationary Shock A Deflationary Shock A Deflationary Shock This is a controversial question. Clearly, the short-term picture is deflationary – one merely needs to look at the trend in oil and commodity prices (Chart 6). Large negative shocks to demand are by their nature deflationary. And when economies start to open again, many businesses – especially in discretionary areas such as travel and tourism – will be under pressure to offer large discounts to attract customers. And with double-digit unemployment rates, labor will not be in a strong bargaining position when it comes to wages. The bigger uncertainty relates to the longer-term outlook. On the one hand, a world of moderate rather than strong growth does not lend itself to serious inflationary pressures. On the other hand, there will be supply constraints in some areas that have the opposite effect. For example, a lasting decline in airline capacity could lead to upward pressure on airfares: the era of super-cheap air travel may well be over. And, as noted above, a retreat from globalization reverses one of the big drivers of low inflation during the past couple of decades. Even more importantly, there is the issue of monetary and fiscal policy. The policy response to Covid-19 dwarfs even the radical actions during the 2007-9 financial meltdown. Public sector debt levels have soared in response to stimulus spending and collapsing tax receipts and central banks have flooded the system with liquidity. These policy actions typically raise the alarm about a future inflation threat. Chart 7The US Monetary Transmission Process is Impaired The US Monetary Transmission Process is Impaired The US Monetary Transmission Process is Impaired Current central bank actions are not inflationary. Previous rounds of quantitative easing (QE) did not lead to higher inflation because the “printed money” largely ended up in bank reserves, not the broader economy. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, easy money is no longer able to trigger a renewed credit boom, and in that sense, the money-credit transmission process is impaired. This is illustrated in Chart 7 by the collapse in the money multiplier (the ratio of broad to narrow money) and the downward trend in money velocity (the ratio of nominal GDP to broad money). QE was great for asset prices but it did not lead to a vibrant economy and rising inflationary pressures. And the same will be true this time around – at least in the next year or so. Central bank actions are keeping the economic shutdown from translating into a financial system shutdown and this is incredibly important. The inflation risks will come later. The current generation of central bankers have been in office during a period of recurring economic shocks and a persistent undershoot of inflation relative to target. When this goes on for long enough, it is sure to affect the perceived balance of risks. In other words, if the bigger threat is believed to be weak growth rather than inflation, then that will encourage policymakers to err on the side of ease, raising the odds that inflation will at some point surprise on the upside. Chart 8Markets Are Not Priced For Higher Long-Run Inflaton Markets Are Not Priced For Higher Long-Run Inflaton Markets Are Not Priced For Higher Long-Run Inflaton It is easy to see why the authorities may not be overly concerned with a period of higher inflation. It could be justified as an offset to the many years where inflation ran below desired levels. And it would help lower the burden of bloated government debt. And central banks could thwart a revolt by bond vigilantes against inflation by buying up any bonds the private sector was not willing to purchase. A return to a 1970s world of rampant inflation is not in prospect. Back then, policy complacency was accompanied by a formidable combination of strong labor unions, buoyant commodity prices, poor corporate productivity and embedded inflation expectations on the part of both business managers and workers. Those conditions no longer exist and are unlikely to re-emerge to any significant degree. Thus, we are not headed for double-digit inflation. But inflation could well get back into the 4% to 5% range in a few years’ time. And the markets are not priced for this with 5-year CPI swap rates at 0.8%, and 10-year swap rates at 1.3% (Chart 8). Policy At The Extremes We are in the midst of an extraordinary surge in government deficits and debt. The age-old concern that large fiscal deficits lead to higher interest rates and thus crowd out private investment is not applicable in the current environment. Central bank policies of QE and anchoring short rates at zero, along with investor demand for safe assets, are keeping bond yields at historically low levels. And none of that will change any time soon. Nevertheless, fiscal trends do matter. Economies eventually will recover and it will not be appropriate for central banks to keep interest rates at zero indefinitely. As interest rates rise, public sector debt arithmetic will turn uglier. This will leave the authorities with tough choices as the growing cost of debt servicing will eat into the revenues available for other spending programs. And this will occur when deficits will already be under persistent upward pressure from rising pension and health-care costs of an aging population. The direct impact of fiscal policy on economic growth reflects the changes in budget deficits, not their levels. Thus, for policy to remain stimulative, underlying deficits would have to keep rising as a share of GDP. That does not seem likely once economies stabilize and governments scale back current relief programs. For example, the latest IMF projections show general government deficits as a share of GDP for the G7 economies rising from 3.8% in 2019 to 12% in 2020, then falling back to 6.2% in 2021. Those swings partly reflect the cyclical impact of recession and recovery on revenues and spending, rather than discretionary changes in policy. In other words, the move in the cyclically-adjusted deficit would be less extreme. Nonetheless, it highlights that in the absence of continued new stimulus measures, fiscal policy will become more restrictive. Given the prospect of a moderate recovery, fiscal imbalances will not diminish quickly. Meanwhile, there will be pressure for increased spending on health care and transfers to financially-strapped regional/local governments. And there is talk in some countries of the need to create a basic income program for all households. That would be a hugely expensive project, even allowing for offsetting changes to tax systems. On the subject of taxes, it is inevitable that rates will have to increase given budget constraints and the need to fund high levels of spending. The bottom line is that the current environment of fiscal profligacy cannot persist. In the heat of the pandemic and economic shutdown there is no limit on what governments are prepared to do. And the markets are not providing any constraints on policymakers. After things calm down, the harsh reality of unprecedented public debt burdens eventually will prove a huge challenge to the authorities. Advocates of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) are not overly concerned about this because they believe central banks can finance any amount of public deficits with no adverse impact on the economy. But there is a caveat: this is sustainable only for as long as inflation stays under control. If inflation rises, then even MMT argues for fiscal discipline. How will it all play out? There is no chance that developed economies will be able to grow out of their public debt problems and we should rule out explicit default. And there will not be any stomach for the degree of austerity that would be required to bring deficits back to reasonable levels. That leaves monetization as the likely end point. And that implies monetary policy being kept easier than economic conditions warrant, leading eventually to higher inflation. The Short Run Trumps The Long Run, But… This report has speculated about some of the long-run implications of the current environment. Those hardly seem to matter during a crisis and the associated massive uncertainty about what will happen economically, politically, financially and socially over the coming year. Never has Keynes’ dictum “In the long run we are all dead” seemed more apposite. Worries about long-term trends in inflation and/or public debt seem misplaced relative to more immediate concerns. In terms of a well-used analogy, if a building is on fire, the imperative is to put out the flames. The problems caused by water damage can be dealt with later because otherwise, there may not be any building left to repair. Nevertheless, investment decisions should not focus exclusively on the short run – especially when the range of possible outcomes is so vast. The 37 years from end-1982 to end-2019 were an extraordinary period for investors with total returns from global equities compounding at 10.3% a year and long-term bonds not far behind. And this was despite two vicious equity bear markets with the world index dropping by more than 50% between March 2000 and October 2002 and again between October 2007 and March 2009. There is no other comparable 37-year period in history where both bonds and stocks have delivered such strong returns. The key was a very favorable starting point: both equities and bonds were very cheap in late 1982 with the world index trading at around 10 times earnings and 10-year Treasurys offering a real yield of around 7%. We currently have very different valuations. The price-earnings ratio for world equities currently is more than 17 and real bond yields are negative. These are not good starting points for potential long-run returns. With nominal yields below 1%, bond returns will be minimal over the next decade. Stocks should do better given that the dividend yield is above bond yields, but returns will be very modest by historical standards (see Table 1). Table 110-Year Asset Return Projections Beyond The Virus Beyond The Virus Concluding Thoughts Much is being written about how Covid-19 will affect the way economies operate in future and how we will all be forced to conduct our lives. Many believe that the virus is a major game changer with some of the changes that have resulted from the crisis becoming a permanent feature. Of course, it is all highly speculative. I am skeptical that there will be lasting major changes in social behavior. People tend to have short memories and, with the critical assumption that vaccines and treatments become available, I expect that we will return to our old habits. People will go back on cruises, pack into bars and restaurants and attend large sporting and cultural events. In other words, life will go on much as before. But the virus will lead to some economic and political effects, both good and bad. On the bad side, the path to economic recovery will be rocky and long-run growth is likely to be negatively affected. And current extreme actions will leave future monetary and fiscal policy massively constrained in dealing with a world of sluggish growth. Meanwhile, inflation could eventually become a problem and the drift toward economic and political nationalism will be reinforced. On a more positive note, businesses are finding new ways to boost efficiency and maybe there will be progress in reducing extreme levels of inequality. We are all in the unfortunate position of being bystanders to an ongoing crisis. There are no compelling historical precedents to light the way forward and every government is struggling to find the right balance between reviving economic activity and preserving lives. In the face of such massive uncertainty, it makes sense to adopt a cautious near-term investment strategy. Hopes that risk assets can be supported solely by hyper-easy monetary policies seem very complacent in my view. The strong bounce in equity prices from their March lows suggests that this is not a bad time to de-risk portfolios.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Chief Economist mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Jose Maria Barrero, Nick Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, "COVID-19 Is Also a Reallocation Shock," Beker Friedman Institute, May 5, 2020. 2 Alexander W. Bartik, Marianne Bertrand, Zoë B. Cullen, Edward L. Glaeser, Michael Luca, Christopher T. Stanton, "How are Small Businesses Adjusting to Covid-19? Early Evidence From A Survey," NBER Working Paper 26989, April 2020.

Highlights Fear of deflation – especially at current debt levels – will keep central-bank policy looser for longer. As a result, monetary authorities will do whatever it takes to revive inflation and inflation expectations to move policy rates away from the zero lower bound. EM income growth will rebound, and the US dollar will weaken as monetary and fiscal stimulus reach the real economy. This will be bullish for commodities, including gold. Over the medium to long term, the reversal in globalization and the atrophy of working-age populations will be inflationary: Labor markets will tighten as economic growth recovers and baby-boomers continue to retire, pushing wages higher and savings lower. Over the short term, we are neutral gold from a pricing standpoint, and believe $1,700/oz is close to fair value. When gold pushes through $1,800/oz, longer-term demographic and economic trends will become apparent and will catalyze gold’s rally. We continue to favor gold as a portfolio hedge, as it has held value throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and the re-emergence of geopolitical tensions, particularly the return of Sino-US trade acrimony. Feature Gold will remain at ~ $1,700/oz after rallying 15% from its mid-March bottom, as markets consolidate over the short term. This new equilibrium has been fueled by North American retail investors and is slightly above our model’s fair value (Chart of the Week). While gold’s short-term price drivers appear to have stabilized over the past few weeks – i.e. real rates, US dollar, and equity uncertainty are holding fairly steady – a temporary pullback is likely. Strategically, however, the balance of risks is skewed to the upside. Chart of the WeekRetail Investment Demand Supports Gold Above Our Fair-Value Estimates Retail Investment Demand Supports Gold Above Our Fair-Value Estimates Retail Investment Demand Supports Gold Above Our Fair-Value Estimates Our usual framework classifies gold’s drivers into three broad categories: Demand for inflation hedges; Monetary and financial aggregates; and Demand for portfolio-diversification assets. In this report, we are narrowing our focus to concentrate on the tactical vs. strategic drivers of gold prices, to assess the metal’s upside potential over the short- and long-term horizons (Table 1). Table 1Short- vs. Long-Term Drivers Of Gold Prices Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Over the short-term, gold prices fluctuate mostly with changes in risk aversion, opportunity costs and relative prices vis-à-vis other assets. Longer term, gold prices trend with income and inflation cycles, along with structural changes in households’ savings rates. Short- and Medium-term Drivers Elevated global uncertainty and falling US real rates are keeping total gold demand resilient in the West. Western Buyers To The Rescue The COVID-19 pandemic greatly altered the composition of gold demand in 1Q20. Jewellery and bar-and-coin demand dropped 42% and 11% y/y in the wake of a collapse of Chinese and Indian demand (Chart 2, panel 1). This was offset by sharp inflows to ETF products – mainly from DM investors. ETF inflows increased by ~ 300 tons in 1Q20, and by 170 tons in April 2020 (Chart 2, panel 3). Elevated global uncertainty and falling US real rates are keeping total gold demand resilient in the West. However, the short-term outlook for gold could be volatile as investment and jewellery demand normalize. As economies reopen, we expect economic uncertainty will fade, which will bring retail and speculative gold demand down in the West, while a recovery in EM economic activity will revive jewellery, bar and coin demand. Chart 2Weak EM Consumer Demand Offset By Strong North America ETF Inflows Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Chart 3Investment Demand Overtakes Jewellery's Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Since 2010, investment and jewellery demand represented ~ 33% and ~ 58%, respectively, of total gold demand – excluding central bank net purchases (Chart 3). As economies reopen, we expect economic uncertainty will fade, which will bring retail and speculative gold demand down in the West, while a recovery in EM economic activity will revive jewellery, bar and coin demand – albeit at a slower pace (Chart 4). NB: A large mismatch in the speed of these adjustments could lead to an undershoot in prices – especially at current elevated positioning. Chart 4Elevated Interests In Gold From Retail Investors Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Chart 5Investors Allocation To Gold Is Close To 2012 Levels Investors Allocation To Gold Is Close To 2012 Levels Investors Allocation To Gold Is Close To 2012 Levels We’ve argued in February there was still an opportunity for investment-led growth to support prices based on the low value of investors’ total holdings of gold compared to global equities on a market-cap basis. This measure is now approaching its 2012 peak and moving toward unknown territory in terms of portfolio and wealth allocation to gold (Chart 5). This is flagging up a risk that short-term traders will want to take profits on their speculative positions, if virus-related uncertainty diminishes. On the other hand, retail buyers could hold on to their hedges. Historically, profound economic dislocations and persistent uncertainty have been complemented by shifts in investors’ behavior, leading to higher average saving rates – e.g. 1929, WWII, 2008’s GFC – (Chart 6). Additionally, downside risks to the reopening of economies worldwide remain significant, particularly given the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic’s evolution: A second wave of contagion would trigger a massive flight to safety and further central bank actions to keep rates depressed. Chart 6Precautionary Savings Rise In Highly Uncertain Periods Precautionary Savings Rise In Highly Uncertain Periods Precautionary Savings Rise In Highly Uncertain Periods Awaiting A Setback To The USD The Fed and other systemically important central banks have taken decisive action to keep money markets functioning and to prevent a solvency crisis (Chart 7, panel 1). Ample liquidity, low economic growth, and collapsing inflation expectations pushed bond yields lower globally, which, in large measure, powered the rally in gold prices (Chart 7, panel 2). The protection offered by US bonds is much weaker at the lower bound. This will benefit gold as a safe-haven asset if uncertainty intensifies this year. In recent weeks, US yields have stabilized, meaning this factor will not provide much support to gold at current levels – assuming, again, no major second wave in COVID-19 contagion. The upside to rates is also limited over the short term as the increase in Treasury supply will be offset by the Fed’s dovish forward rate guidance. Still, the protection offered by US bonds is much weaker at the lower bound. This will benefit gold as a safe-haven asset if uncertainty intensifies this year (e.g., ahead of the US elections). Moreover, the Fed appears to be willing to risk remaining behind the curve for the foreseeable future. Bonds' protection would suffer if the Fed allows inflation overshoot (more on this below). In 2H20, we expect the USD to weaken as virus-related safe-haven demand – which fueled its 14% rally ytd vs. EM currencies – abates and the Fed’s and the US government’s responses to the crisis floods markets globally with USD liquidity.1 Relative balance-sheet and interest-rate dynamics will reassert themselves as important drivers of currency movements (Chart 8). Chart 7QE Infinity Will Keep Bond Yields Depressed QE Infinity Will Keep Bond Yields Depressed QE Infinity Will Keep Bond Yields Depressed Chart 8USD Deviating From Interest Rate Differentials USD Deviating From Interest Rate Differentials USD Deviating From Interest Rate Differentials The tailwinds from declining US real rates ended and a decline in virus-related uncertainty will be offset by the positive effect of a weaker dollar. A temporary pullback is likely. Bottom Line: The sum of gold’s short-term drivers are neutral at the current $1,700/oz equilibrium. The tailwinds from declining US real rates ended and a decline in virus-related uncertainty will be offset by the positive effect of a weaker dollar. A temporary pullback is likely. Long-term Drivers The underlying trend in gold prices will remain positive, supported by accelerating EM income growth over the next 12 months. Stimulative Policies To Boost EM Income Growth Global income growth is one of the core drivers of gold prices over long horizons (Chart 9, panel 1). As countries get wealthier, the pool of savings rises, which benefits gold, along with most financial assets. Because gold-mining production growth is relatively stable and inelastic to prices in the short-term, changes in income growth above production growth have a crucial influence on gold’s trajectory over the long run. EM countries – chiefly China and India – are the largest buyers of jewellery, bars and coins, and remain among the fastest-growing economies on the planet. Hence, since 2000, gold’s annual price change correlates strongly with their income growth (Chart 9, panel 2). In addition, central banks’ net gold purchases – which have been increasingly positive since 2009 – effectively reduce available supply to consumers. We include net purchases in our measure of total supply to separate it from consumer and investor demand – which respond to entirely different incentives (Chart 9, panel 3). We expect EM central banks will continue diversifying part of their US dollar reserves to gold.2 Chart 9Global Income Growth Drives Long Term Gold Returns Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Chart 10China's Economic Activity Close To Pre-COVID-19 Levels Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound The underlying trend in gold prices will remain positive, supported by accelerating EM income growth over the next 12 months. China’s economic activity appears to have partly recovered from the COVID-19 shock (Chart 10). Going forward, the country’s surging fiscal and monetary stimulus, in addition to a weakening US dollar, will revive growth in neighboring Asian economies this year. Structural Deflationary Pressures Are Easing We do not believe the lack of inflationary pressure post-GFC will be repeated this time. The stimulus is radically larger and geared more toward the real economy as opposed to rescuing the banking system. As we’ve argued in previous reports, gold acts as a good inflation hedge when there is an increase in perceived risks of significant overshoots.3 In normal times, inflation expectations move slowly and trend more or less with past inflation prints (Chart 11). However, the unprecedented global fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed to combat the COVID-19-induced recession could shift expectations rapidly and profoundly. We do not believe the lack of inflationary pressure post-GFC will be repeated this time. The stimulus is radically larger and geared more toward the real economy as opposed to rescuing the banking system (Chart 12). Moreover, a combination of deflationary structural factors – i.e. trade globalization, expanding global value chains, and demographics – are reversing, and will gradually become inflationary.4 This is a stark difference to the post-GFC quantitative easing. Chart 11Inflation Expectations Trend Along Past Realized Inflation Rates Inflation Expectations Trend Along Past Realized Inflation Rates Inflation Expectations Trend Along Past Realized Inflation Rates Chart 12Surging US Broad Money Supply Surging US Broad Money Supply Surging US Broad Money Supply Firstly, globalization’s deflationary impulse – thru increasing trade and expanding global value chains – stalled a few years ago (Chart 13). Recently, ramping anti-globalization policies amidst the Sino-US trade tensions exposed vulnerabilities in the current trade infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic risks accelerating these trends. Following widespread quarantine measures in China, US imports from China fell sharply in February and March, and firms without pre-established supply chain relationships with other Asian countries that could backstop supply disruptions were left unable to find alternative suppliers (Table 2). Firms will likely continue diversifying their supply sources and insource critical activities to the US, post-COVID-19.5 Additionally, our Geopolitical strategists see increasing risks of renewed US pressures on China ahead of the election.6 An acceleration in de-globalization trends post-COVID-19 will disrupt international supply chains and amplify inflationary pressures. Chart 13The Structural Reversal In Globalization Trends Will Be Inflationary The Structural Reversal In Globalization Trends Will Be Inflationary The Structural Reversal In Globalization Trends Will Be Inflationary   Table 2Vulnerability In US Supply Chains Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound China’s declining support ratio also means the pool of cheap offshore labor for DM economies is shrinking. Secondly, structural demographic trends are reversing. The world’s support ratio – i.e. the number of workers per dependent – has been trending downward since 2015 (Chart 14, panel 1). As more people around the world reach retirement age, this trend is expected to continue. This trend is especially powerful in China, whose workforce was one of the great deflationary demographic factors in previous decades. Effectively, this implies aggregate demand is likely to exceed aggregate supply as more workers become consumers. In theory, this also implies lower global savings and a higher neutral rate of interest. Consequently, a rising neutral rate, combined with our belief central bankers will be behind the curve in raising rates, increases the risks of inflation moving sharply above target. Chart 14Demographic Trends Will Become Inflationary Demographic Trends Will Become Inflationary Demographic Trends Will Become Inflationary China’s declining support ratio also means the pool of cheap offshore labor for DM economies is shrinking – the country could lose ~ 400 million workers over the remainder of the century (Chart 14, panel 2). The integration of the Chinese – and other EM countries – workforce during the 2000s led to a doubling of the global pool of labor supply and reduced the average labor cost. Investment Conclusion Asset markets are not positioned for higher inflation, thus, investors seeking refuge ahead of a widespread re-pricing of inflation risk likely will benefit from current relatively inexpensive hedges. Investors need to assess the long-term consequences of these trends and policies vs. the short-term deflationary COVID-19 shock. Asset markets are not positioned for higher inflation, thus, investors seeking refuge ahead of a widespread re-pricing of inflation risk likely will benefit from current relatively inexpensive hedges (Chart 15). While we expect higher US inflation expectations and headline rates in 2H20 – driven by the decline in the USD and the increase in oil and base-metals’ prices – we do not expect meaningful inflation-overshoot risks until late 2021. Core inflation rates will remain depressed until the large labor-supply overhang clears – in the US and globally – and the effect of the lower USD pass-through to higher prices emerges (Chart 16). Chart 15Gold Is Not Relatively Expansive, Except Vs. Commodities Gold Is Not Relatively Expansive, Except Vs. Commodities Gold Is Not Relatively Expansive, Except Vs. Commodities Chart 16The COVID-19-Induced Deflationary Effects Will Last Until Next Year The COVID-19-Induced Deflationary Effects Will Last Until Next Year The COVID-19-Induced Deflationary Effects Will Last Until Next Year Re-anchoring expectations will necessitate periods of above-target inflation rates. The short-term drivers of gold are neutral at the current $1,700/oz equilibrium, as inflation pressure won’t surface until 2H21. Moreover, there is a non-negligible risk of a short-term pullback if DM economies are successfully reopened without significant increases in COVID-19 infection rates. This should serve as a buying opportunity, as the medium- and long-term outlook remains bullish for the yellow metal. EM income growth is poised to rebound as global monetary and fiscal stimulus reach the real economy and the USD depreciates. The reversal in globalization and demographic trends will become inflationary. Policymakers will do whatever it takes to revive inflation and inflation expectations to move away from the zero lower bound. Re-anchoring expectations will necessitate periods of above-target inflation rates. Thus, real rates should be contained as QE continues to depress the term premium and inflation starts to move higher. Fear of deflation – especially at current debt levels – will keep central banks too easy for too long.   Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Oil production globally is falling faster than expected, based on anecdotal press reports showing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) took an additional 1mm b/d of production off the market, bringing its total shut-in level to 7.5mm b/d for next month. The Saudi government urged OPEC 2.0 member states to follow its lead and reduce production further. The US EIA this week reported it expects Russia’s production to fall more than 800k b/d, while in the US production is expected to decline by a similar amount this year, and another 600k b/d in 2021. Canada’s production is expected to fall 400k b/d. Non-OPEC production overall is expected to fall 2.4mm b/d this year. We will be updating our supply-demand balances and prices forecasts in next week’s report. Base Metals: Neutral Steel markets are becoming concerned COVID-19-induced production declines will reduce iron-ore shipments. Earlier this month, 10 cities in the Brazilian state of Para, an ore-producing region, were placed under lockdown, according to FastMarkets MB, a sister publication of BCA Research. Even though ore mining and shipping have been exempted, concern that COVID-19 could reach the producing regions and affect output is growing. Benchmark 62% Fe ore is down 6.2% from its January highs (Chart 17). Precious Metals: Neutral A forecast by Australia’s Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (ISER) that Australia would become the world’s largest gold producer in 2021 was seconded this week by a private forecaster, Resources Monitor. The ISER forecast Australia would overtake China as the top gold producer in its March 2020 forecast, with output reaching 383 tons next year. Australia produced 326 tons last year, vs. China’s 380 tons. Ags/Softs:  Underweight The USDA released its first estimate for the 2020/2021 marketing year, projecting corn ending stocks at 3.318 Bn bushels for the season, the largest stockpile since 1987/1998 (Chart 18). Huge planting projections will outweigh increases in exports demand of 35 Mn bushels and in usage for ethanol biofuel of 5.2 Bn bushels compared to the current season. Nonetheless corn futures hedged higher on Tuesday, rising 5.25 cents/bu, as the weak outlook was offset by downward revisions to old crop inventories. Finally wheat’s ending stocks were moderately revised up for the current season, but futures still fell to the lowest in a week due to better than expected weather in the US and higher global stocks expectations. Chart 17Supply Constraints Could Boost Prices Supply Constraints Could Boost Prices Supply Constraints Could Boost Prices Chart 18USDA Expects Large US Corn Stocks Increase USDA Expects Large US Corn Stocks Increase USDA Expects Large US Corn Stocks Increase       Footnotes 1     We’ve outlined our view on the dollar for 2020 in our April 23, 2020 Weekly Report. Please see USD Strength Restrains Commodity Recovery, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 2     The U.S. dollar remains the reserve currency of the world today, but that exorbitant privilege is fading. 3    Please see our Weekly Report titled "All That Glitters ... And Then Some," published July 25, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4    For more details on these structural factors please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Reports titled "Troubling Implications Of Global Demographic Trends," and "Three Demographic Megatrends," published 28 February, 2019 and October 26, 2017.  5    Please see Sebastian Heise, “How Did China’s COVID-19 Shutdown Affect U.S. Supply Chains?,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, May 12, 2020. 6    Please see BCA's Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert titled "#WWIII," published May 1, 2020. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com.     Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q1 Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound Raising Gold To A Strategic Holding, In Preparation For An Inflation Rebound

Highlights Real Yield Curve: Last week’s negative oil print could signal the peak in deflationary sentiment for this cycle. It’s a good time for bond investors to enter real yield curve steepeners. Buy a short-maturity real yield (1-year or 2-year) and sell a long-maturity real yield (10-year or 30-year). High-Yield: High-yield bond spreads are much too tight relative to the VIX and ratings migration. This is justified for Ba-rated issuers that can tap the Fed’s emergency programs. However, B-rated and below spreads look vulnerable. Investors should overweight Ba-rated junk bonds and underweight the B-rated and below credit tiers. Bank Bonds: US bond investors should overweight subordinate bank bonds within an allocation to investment grade corporate credit. Subordinate bank bonds are Baa-rated and thus offer reasonably high spreads. But unlike other Baa-rated bonds, banks should avoid ratings downgrades during this cycle. Feature Oil was the big mover in financial markets last week, with the WTI price dropping briefly into negative territory on the day before expiry of the May futures contract.1  Bond markets didn’t react much to the negative oil price (Chart 1), but this doesn’t mean that the energy market is unimportant for yields. On the contrary, the oil price often sends important signals about the near-term outlook for inflation, a key input for bond investors. Chart 1Negative Oil Didn't Shock The Bond Market Negative Oil Didn't Shock The Bond Market Negative Oil Didn't Shock The Bond Market A Bond Market Trade Inspired By Negative Oil The Fisher Equation is the formula that relates nominal yields, real yields and inflation expectations. In its simplest form the Fisher equation is: Nominal Yield = Real Yield + Inflation Expectations When applying this equation to the act of bond yield forecasting we find it helpful to note that both the nominal yield and inflation expectations have specific valuation anchors. The Federal Reserve sets the valuation anchor for nominal yields because it controls the overnight nominal interest rate. If you enter a long position in a nominal Treasury security and hold to maturity you will make money versus a position in cash if the average overnight nominal interest rate turns out to be lower than the nominal bond yield at the time of purchase. The oil price often sends important signals about the near-term outlook for inflation, a key input for bond investors. Similarly, inflation expectations are anchored by the actual inflation rate. If you enter a long position in inflation protection and hold to maturity you will make money if actual inflation turns out to be higher than the rate that was embedded in bond prices at the time of purchase.2 Turning to real yields, we see why the Fisher Equation is important. Real yields have no obvious valuation anchor. This means that the best forecasting technique is often to: (1)   Use our known valuation anchors (the fed funds rate and inflation) to forecast the nominal yield and inflation expectations. (2)  Use the Fisher Equation to back-out a fair value for real yields. With all that said, let’s apply this framework to today’s bond market in light of last week’s dramatic oil price moves. Inflation Compensation The cost of inflation protection tracks the oil price, more so at the front end of the curve than at the long end. This makes sense given that recent oil price trends tell us a fair amount about the outlook for inflation over the next year but very little about the outlook for inflation over the next 10 or 30 years. The inflation market didn’t react much to oil’s dip into negative territory last week, but this year’s broader drop in the WTI price from above $50 to below $20 had a big impact on TIPS breakeven inflation rates and CPI swap rates, particularly at short maturities (Chart 2). In fact, consistent with expectations for a very low oil price, the bond market is now pricing-in deflation over the next two years. Chart 2Bond Market Priced For Deflation Bond Market Priced For Deflation Bond Market Priced For Deflation Nominal Yields The Fed’s zero interest rate policy is having a profound effect on nominal bond yield volatility. Because the consensus investor expectation is that the Fed will keep rates pinned near zero for a long time, almost irrespective of economic outcomes, even a significant market event like a plunge in the oil price will do very little to move nominal bond yields. During the last zero-lower-bound period, nominal bond yield volatility fell across the entire yield curve but fell much more at the short end of the curve than at the long end (Chart 3). The same phenomenon will re-occur during the current zero-lower-bound episode. Chart 3The Zero Lower Bound Crushes Nominal Bond Yield Volatility The Zero Lower Bound Crushes Nominal Bond Yield Volatility The Zero Lower Bound Crushes Nominal Bond Yield Volatility Real Yields Using the Fisher Equation, we can deduce how real yields must move given changes in inflation expectations and nominal bond yields. With the Fed ensuring that short-maturity nominal yields remain stable, the recent decline in oil and inflation expectations caused short-dated real yields to jump (Chart 4). Long-maturity real yields remain low because (a) the shock to inflation expectations was smaller at the long-end of the curve and (b) the Fed’s forward rate guidance doesn’t suppress nominal bond yield volatility as much for long maturities. Chart 4There's Value In Short-Maturity Real Yields There's Value In Short-Maturity Real Yields There's Value In Short-Maturity Real Yields Investment Implications If we assume that last week’s -$37.60 WTI print will mark the cyclical trough in oil prices, US bond investors can profit by implementing real yield curve steepeners.3  Short-dated real yields will fall as oil and short-dated inflation expectations recover and nominal yields remain stable. In this scenario, real yields are more likely to rise at the long-end of the curve, given the greater volatility in long-dated nominal yields and the fact that long-maturity inflation expectations are not as depressed. Looking at the 2008 episode as a comparable, we see that the cost of inflation protection bottomed around the same time as the trough in oil, and about 7 months before the trough in 12-month headline CPI (Chart 5). After that trough, with the Fed keeping short-dated nominal rates pinned near zero, the inflation compensation curve flattened and the real yield curve steepened. Chart 5Initiate Real Yield Curve Steepeners Initiate Real Yield Curve Steepeners Initiate Real Yield Curve Steepeners Bottom Line: Last week’s negative oil print could signal the peak in deflationary sentiment for this cycle. It’s a good time for bond investors to enter real yield curve steepeners. Buy a short-maturity real yield (1-year or 2-year) and sell a long-maturity real yield (10-year or 30-year). Poor Junk Bond Valuations Illustrated In recent reports we have been advising investors to own spread products that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support.4 This includes investment grade corporate bonds and Ba-rated high-yield bonds, but not junk bonds rated B or below. In past reports we also showed that B-rated and below junk spreads don’t adequately compensate investors for likely default losses. But this week, we want to quickly illustrate that junk spreads are trading too tight even compared to other common coincident indicators. Specifically, we zero in on the VIX and ratings migration. In 2008, the cost of inflation protection bottomed around the same time as the trough in oil, and about 7 months before the trough in 12-month headline CPI. Charts 6A, 7A and 8A show the historical relationship between the VIX and Ba, B and Caa junk spreads. In all three cases, spreads are well below levels that have been historically consistent with the current reading from the VIX. Charts 6B, 7B and 8B show the historical relationship between the monthly Moody’s rating downgrade/upgrade ratio and Ba, B and Caa spreads. These charts tell a similar story. In fact, March saw nearly 12 times as many ratings downgrades as upgrades, the third highest monthly ratio since 1986. With more downgrades coming in the months ahead, it is apparent that junk spreads are stretched. Chart 6ABa Spreads & VIX Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Chart 6BBa Spreads & Ratings Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Chart 7AB Spreads & VIX Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Chart 7BB Spreads & Ratings Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Chart 8ACaa Spreads & VIX Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Chart 8BCaa Spreads & Ratings Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation Relatively tight spreads are probably justified in the Ba space where firms will benefit from the Federal Reserve’s Main Street Lending facilities.5 However, B-rated and below securities have mostly been left out in the cold. We see high odds of spread widening for those credit tiers.  Bottom Line: High-yield bond spreads are much too tight relative to the VIX and ratings migration. This is justified for Ba-rated issuers that can tap the Fed’s emergency programs. However, B-rated and below spreads look vulnerable. Investors should overweight Ba-rated junk bonds and underweight the B-rated and below credit tiers. Subordinate Bank Debt Is A Good Bet The Fed’s decision to exclude bank bonds from its primary and secondary market corporate bond purchases complicates our investment strategy. We want to focus on sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support, but should we carve out an exception for bank bonds? Bank Bonds Are A Defensive Sector First, we note that banks are a defensive corporate bond sector. This is due to bank debt’s relatively high credit rating and low duration. Notice that banks outperformed the rest of the corporate index when spreads widened in March, but have lagged the index by 131 bps since spreads peaked on March 23 (Chart 9). Bank equities don’t exhibit the same behavior and have in fact steadily underperformed the S&P 500 since the start of the year (Chart 9, bottom 2 panels). Chart 9Bank Bonds Are Defensive... Bank Bonds Are Defensive... Bank Bonds Are Defensive... However, if we consider senior and subordinate bank debt separately, a different picture emerges (Chart 10). Senior bank bonds behave defensively, as described above, but the lower-rated/higher duration subordinate bank bond index is more cyclical. It has outperformed the corporate benchmark by 316 bps since March 23 (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10...Except Subordinate Debt ...Except Subordinate Debt ...Except Subordinate Debt The Value In Bank Bonds Despite being a defensive sector, senior bank bonds offer attractive risk-adjusted value. The average spread of the senior bank index is 18 bps above the spread offered by the equivalently-rated (A) corporate bond benchmark. Further, the senior bank index has lower average duration than the A-rated benchmark, making the sector very attractive on a per-unit-of-duration basis (Chart 11A). Chart 11ASenior Bank Bond Valuation Senior Bank Bond Valuation Senior Bank Bond Valuation Chart 11BSubordinate Bank Bond Valuation Subordinate Bank Bond Valuation Subordinate Bank Bond Valuation ​​​​​​​Turning to subordinate bank bonds, risk-adjusted value looks only fair compared to other equivalently-rated (Baa) corporate bonds (Chart 11B). However, in absolute terms the subordinate bank index offers a spread of 246 bps, compared to a spread of 178 bps on the senior bank index. Downgrade Risk Is Minimal We think investors should overweight subordinate bank bonds for two reasons. First, we think the Fed’s aggressive policy response means that investment grade corporate bond spreads, in general, have already peaked. We would expect defensive senior bank bonds to underperform in this environment of spread tightening, even though they offer attractive risk-adjusted value. Subordinate bank bonds should outperform the index in this environment, even if other Baa-rated sectors offer better value. Second, other Baa-rated corporate bond sectors offer elevated spreads because downgrade risk remains high. The Fed’s facilities will prevent default for investment grade firms, but many Baa-rated issuers will end up taking on a lot of debt to avoid bankruptcy and will get downgraded. We think banks are insulated from this downgrade risk. Even in the Fed's "Severely Adverse Scenario", three of banks' four main capital ratios remain above pre-GFC levels. Chart 12 shows the four main capital ratios calculated for US banks, and the dashed line shows the minimum value the Fed estimates that those ratios will hit under the “Severely Adverse Scenario” from the 2019 Stress Test. Three of the four ratios would remain above pre-crisis levels, and the Tier 1 Leverage Ratio would be only a touch lower. Chart 12Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Further, our US Investment Strategy service observes that the large banks had sufficient earnings in the first quarter to significantly ramp up loan loss provisions without taking any capital hit at all.6 Our US Investment Strategy team believes that, as long as the shutdown doesn’t last more than six months, the big banks will have sufficient earnings power to absorb loan losses this year, without having to mark down their capital ratios, which in any case are extremely high. Bottom Line: US bond investors should overweight subordinate bank bonds within an allocation to investment grade corporate credit. Subordinate bank bonds are Baa-rated and thus offer reasonably high spreads. But unlike other Baa-rated bonds, banks should avoid ratings downgrades during this cycle. In short, subordinate bank debt looks like a reasonably safe way to capture high-beta exposure to the investment grade corporate bond market.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For a more detailed explanation of the WTI price’s shocking move please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Alert, “WTI In Free Fall”, dated April 20, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 2 An example of a long position in inflation protection would be buying the 5-year TIPS and shorting the equivalent-maturity nominal Treasury security. 3 Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service’s view is that the WTI oil price will average ~$60 to $65 in 2021. For further details please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “US Storage Tightens, Pushing WTI Lower”, dated April 16, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Is The Bottom Already In?”, dated April 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on the Fed’s different emergency facilities please see US Investment Strategy / US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures”, dated April 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Big Bank Beige Book, April 2020”, dated April 20, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Inflation-Linked Bonds: The plunging price of oil has put renewed downward pressure on global bond yields via lower inflation expectations. With oil prices set to recover over the next 6-12 months as the global economy awakens from the COVID-19 slumber, depressed market-derived inflation expectations can move higher across the developed markets – most notably in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Favor inflation-linked government bonds versus nominals in those countries on a strategic (6-12 months) basis. UK Corporates: The Bank of England (BoE) is supporting the UK investment grade corporate bond market with an unprecedented level and pace of purchases, with credit spreads at attractive levels. Upgrade UK investment grade corporates to overweight on a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Across sectors, favor debt from sectors such as non-bank Financials and Communications that are less exposed to pandemic-related uncertainty but still benefit from BoE buying. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Link Between Oil & Bond Yields Remains Strong The Link Between Oil & Bond Yields Remains Strong The Link Between Oil & Bond Yields Remains Strong The shocking, albeit brief, journey of the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil price benchmark below zero last week was another in a long line of stunning market moves seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those negative oil prices were technical in nature and lasted all of one day, but the ramifications for global bond markets of the falling cost of oil in 2020 have been more enduring. Government bond yields have largely followed the ebbs and flows in energy markets for most of the past decade, and this year has been no exception (Chart of the Week). That link from oil has been through the inflation expectations component of yields, which have been (and remain) highly correlated to oil prices in virtually every developed market country. This is likely due to the persistent low global inflation backdrop since the 2008 financial crisis, which has made cyclical swings in energy prices the marginal driver of both realized and expected inflation. Chart 2BCA's Commodity Strategists Expect Oil Prices To Recover BCA's Commodity Strategists Expect Oil Prices To Recover BCA's Commodity Strategists Expect Oil Prices To Recover Our colleagues at BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy now anticipate higher oil prices over the next 12-18 months.1 Global growth is expected to recover from the COVID-19 recession sooner (and faster) than global oil production, helping to improve the demand/supply balance in energy markets and boost oil prices (Chart 2). Our energy strategists expect the benchmark Brent oil price to rise to $42/bbl by the end of 2020 and $78/bbl by the end of 2021. Those are big moves compared to the current spot price around $20/bbl, and would impart significant upward pressure on inflation expectations if the history of the past decade is any guide. That kind of move in oil prices should also help lift overall nominal government bond yields. Although the real (inflation-adjusted) component of yields is likely to remain low as major central banks like the Fed and ECB will remain highly accommodative, even when growth and inflation begin to recover, given the severity of the COVID-19 global recession. With market-based inflation expectations now at such beaten-up levels, and with the disinflationary effect of falling energy prices set to fade, we see an opportunity to play for a cyclical rebound in inflation breakevens across the developed markets by favoring inflation-linked government bonds versus nominal yielding equivalents. A Simple Framework For Finding Value In Inflation Breakevens Given the remarkably tight correlation between oil prices and market-determined inflation expectations in so many countries, it should be fairly straightforward to model the latter using the former as the main input. We have developed a series of fair value regressions for breakevens in the major developed countries which do exactly that. In this simple approach, we attempt to model the 10-year breakeven from inflation-linked bonds for eight countries – the US, the UK, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Canada and Australia - as a function of a short-run variable (oil prices) and a long-run variable (the trend in realized inflation). Specifically, we are using the annual percentage change in the Brent oil price benchmark in local currency terms (i.e. converted from US dollars at spot exchange rates) as the short-run variable and a five-year moving average of realized headline CPI inflation as the long-run variable. The latter is included to provide an “anchor” for breakevens based on the actual performance of inflation in each country. In other words, expectations about what inflation will look like in the future are informed by what it has done in the past – what economists refer to as “adaptive” expectations. The generic regression equation used for each country is: 10-year inflation breakeven = α + β1 * (annual % change of Brent oil price in local currency terms) + β2 * (60-month moving average of headline CPI inflation) In Table 1, we present the results of the regressions of each of the eight countries, which use weekly data dating back to the start of 2012 to capture the period when oil prices have most heavily influenced inflation expectations. The coefficients, R-squareds and standard errors of the regressions are all shown, as well as the most recent model residual (i.e. the deviation of 10-year inflation expectations from model-determined fair value). All the coefficients for each model are significant. The R-squareds of the models vary, with the models for France and Australia doing the best job of explaining changes in inflation expectations in those two countries. Table 1Details Of Our New 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Models Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low For the UK and Japan, we added an additional “dummy” variable to control for the unique situations that we believe have influenced inflation breakevens in those countries. For the UK, the period since the June 2016 Brexit vote has seen the path of inflation expectations stay nearly 50bps higher than implied by moves in GBP-denominated oil prices and the trend in actual UK inflation. For Japan, the period since the Bank of Japan initiated its Yield Curve Control policy in September 2016 has seen breakevens stay nearly 60bps below fair value as derived from JPY-denominated oil prices and the trend in actual Japanese inflation. Bond investors with longer-term investment horizons looking to play for a global growth recovery from the COVID-19 recession over the next 12-18 months should position for some widening of breakevens by favoring inflation-linked bonds over nominal paying government debt. In Charts 3 to10 over the next four pages, we show the models for each country. 10-year inflation breakevens versus the independent variables in the models are shown in the top two panels, the model fair value is presented in the 3rd panel, and the deviation from fair value is in the bottom panel. In all cases, breakevens are below fair value, suggesting that inflation-linked bonds look relatively attractive versus nominal government bonds. Chart 3Our US 10-Year TIPS Breakevens Model Our US 10-Year TIPS Breakevens Model Our US 10-Year TIPS Breakevens Model Chart 4Our UK 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our UK 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our UK 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 5Our France 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our France 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our France 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 6Our Italy 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Italy 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Italy 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 7Our Japan 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Japan 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Japan 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 8Our Germany 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Germany 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Germany 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 9Our Canada 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Canada 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Canada 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 10Our Australia 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Australia 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Australia 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 11Real Inflation-Linked Bond Yields Will Remain Subdued For Longer Real Inflation-Linked Bond Yields Will Remain Subdued For Longer Real Inflation-Linked Bond Yields Will Remain Subdued For Longer The largest deviations from fair value can be found in Canada (-70bps), Australia (-48bps), the UK (-29bps), and the US (-26bps). 10-year breakevens are also below fair value in the euro zone countries and Japan, but not by more than one standard deviation as is the case for the other four countries. Bond investors with longer-term investment horizons looking to play for a global growth recovery from the COVID-19 recession over the next 12-18 months should position for some widening of breakevens by favoring inflation-linked bonds over nominal paying government debt. Focus on the four markets with breakevens furthest from fair value, although from a market liquidity perspective it is easier to implement those positions in the US and UK, which represent a combined 69% of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Inflation-Linked bond index. A rise in inflation expectations should also, eventually, put some sustained upward pressure on nominal bond yields. We would rather play that initially by positioning for higher inflation breakevens, rather than having outright below-benchmark duration exposure, as developed market central banks will stay accommodative for longer given the severity of the COVID-19 recession - that will keep real bond yields lower for longer (Chart 11). Breakevens from inflation-linked bonds are now too low across the developed markets – most notably in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Bottom Line: The plunging price of oil has put renewed downward pressure on global bond yields via lower inflation expectations. With oil prices set to recover over the next 6-12 months as the global economy starts to awaken from the coronavirus induced slumber, breakevens from inflation-linked bonds are now too low across the developed markets – most notably in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Favor linkers over nominals in those countries. Where Is The Value In UK Corporate Bonds? Chart 12Upgrade UK IG Corporates To Overweight On BoE Buying Upgrade UK IG Corporates To Overweight On BoE Buying Upgrade UK IG Corporates To Overweight On BoE Buying The Bank of England (BoE) initiated its Corporate Bond Purchase Scheme (CBPS) in August 2016 as part of a package of stimulus measures to cushion the economic blow from the UK’s vote to exit the European Union. As we noted in recent joint report with our sister service, BCA Research US Bond Strategy,2 the CBPS helped tighten spreads by lowering downgrade and default risk premiums and also helped spur corporate bond issuance (Chart 12). Shortly after that report was published, the BoE announced that it would be purchasing a further £10 billion in investment grade nonfinancial corporate bonds in the coming months, doubling the scheme’s aggregate holdings to £20 billion. In addition, the bank would make these purchases at a significantly faster pace than in 2016, which implies a faster transmission towards tightening of spreads. Compared to other central bank peers, however, the BoE’s program still has room to expand, which makes UK investment grade credit attractive over tactical and strategic investment horizons. Using the market value of the Bloomberg Barclays UK corporate bond index (excluding financials) as a proxy for the total value of eligible bonds, the CBPS is on track to own roughly 9% of all eligible bonds by the time the £20 billion target is reached. The neighboring European Central Bank, on the other hand, already owns 23% of the stock of eligible euro area corporate bonds in its market, and that figure is only set to increase with policymakers set to do “whatever it takes” to backstop the investment grade market. Year-to-date, UK corporate bonds appear to have recovered somewhat from the panicked selloff earlier this quarter (Table 2), with the Bloomberg Barclays UK investment grade corporate bond index down only -0.3% in total return terms. In excess return terms relative to duration-matched UK corporate bonds, however, the index is down -5.2%, indicating that weakness has persisted in the pure credit component. Table 2UK Investment Grade Corporate Bond Returns Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low At the broad sector level, Other Industrials appear to be the outlier, having delivered positive excess returns (+0.6%) and significant total returns (+16%). These returns are not nearly as attractive, however, on a risk-adjusted basis once you consider that this sector has an index duration more than three times that of the overall index.3 Outside of that sector, the best performers, in excess return terms, are predominantly the more “defensive” sectors—Utilities (-3.4%), Technology (-3.7%), Communications (-4.2%) and Consumer Non-Cyclical (-4.6%). Meanwhile, the sectors most exposed to vanishing consumer demand and weak global growth have performed the worst—Transportation (-9.5%), Capital Goods (-7%), Energy (-6.8%), and Basic Industry (-6.2%). Credit spreads in the UK indicate that the market has already begun to stabilize in response to the BoE’s new round of corporate bond purchases. Credit spreads in the UK indicate that the market has already begun to stabilize in response to the BoE’s new round of corporate bond purchases (Chart 13). The overall index spread, although still elevated at 228bps, has already tightened by 57bps from the peak in late March. The gap between the index spreads of Baa-rated and Aa-rated UK debt remained relatively stable through the wave of sell-offs, peaking at +53bps, below the 2019 high of +55bps, and settling now to +36bps. Outside the purview of the CBPS, however, the situation is a bit rockier, with the overall high-yield index spread +590bps above that of the investment grade index. Broadly speaking, there is a clear disparity between those credit tiers that have the support of the monetary authorities and those that do not. Investment grade spreads will continue to tighten as the BoE rapidly increases its holdings of investment grade corporate bonds. However, high-yield bonds remain exposed to downgrade/default risk and ongoing uncertainty stemming from the COVID-19 economic shock. To drill down into which credit tier spreads offer the most value within the UK investment grade space, we use the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings. This is one of the tools we use to assess value in global credit spreads, as measured by historical “spread cushions”. Specifically, we calculate how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus duration-matched government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. Chart 14 shows the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings for all the credit tiers in the UK investment grade space. Aaa-rated debt appears most unattractive, with the spreads currently ranking below the historical median. Between the other three tiers, Aa-rated debt offers the most value, although all three are at historically attractive levels. Chart 13UK IG Has Held Up Well During The COVID-19 Shock UK IG Has Held Up Well During The COVID-19 Shock UK IG Has Held Up Well During The COVID-19 Shock Chart 14UK IG Breakeven Spreads Look Most Attractive For Aa-Rated Bonds UK IG Breakeven Spreads Look Most Attractive For Aa-Rated Bonds UK IG Breakeven Spreads Look Most Attractive For Aa-Rated Bonds On the sector-level, the disparity in spreads is most clearly visible in the sectors most exposed to the pandemic. In Charts 15 & 16, we show the history of option-adjusted spreads (OAS) for the major industrial sub-groupings of the Bloomberg Barclays UK investment grade corporate index. Spreads look widest relative to history for sectors such as Energy and Transportation, while spread widening has been contained in more insulated sectors such as Financials. Chart 15A Mixed Performance For UK IG By Sector In 2020 … A Mixed Performance For UK IG By Sector In 2020 ... A Mixed Performance For UK IG By Sector In 2020 ... Chart 16… But Spreads, In General, Remain Below Previous Cyclical Peaks ... But Spreads, In General, Remain Below Previous Cyclical Peaks ... But Spreads, In General, Remain Below Previous Cyclical Peaks Another way to assess value across UK investment grade corporates is our sector relative value framework. Borrowing from the methodology used for US corporate credit by our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy, the sector relative value framework determines “fair value” spreads for each of the major and minor industry level sub-indices of the overall UK investment grade universe. The methodology takes each sector's individual OAS and regresses it in a cross-sectional regression with all other sectors. The dependent variables in the model are each sector's duration, 12-month trailing spread volatility and credit rating - the primary risk factors for any corporate bond. Using the common coefficients from that regression, a risk-adjusted "fair value" spread is calculated. The difference between the actual OAS and fair value OAS is our valuation metric used to inform our sector allocation ranking. We see this as an opportune time to upgrade our recommended allocation for UK investment grade corporates to overweight. The latest output from the UK relative value spread model can be found in Table 3. We also show the duration-times-spread (DTS) for each sector in those tables, which we use as the primary way to measure the riskiness (volatility) of each sector. The scatterplot in Chart 17 shows the tradeoff between the valuation residual from our model and each sector's DTS. Table 3UK Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Chart 17UK Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Valuation Versus Risk Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low We can then apply individual sector weights based on the model output and our desired level of overall spread risk to come up with a recommended credit portfolio. The weights are determined at our discretion and are not the output from any quantitative portfolio optimization process. The only constraints are that all sector weights must add to 100% (i.e. the portfolio is fully invested with no use of leverage) and the overall level of spread risk (DTS) must equal our desired target. Amid a backdrop of global uncertainty, we reiterate one of our major themes this quarter—buy what the central banks are buying. Given that UK corporate spreads are attractive on a breakeven basis, and with the BoE purchasing corporate debt at an even faster pace than during the volatile period following the shock Brexit vote in 2016, we see this as an opportune time to upgrade our recommended allocation for UK investment grade corporates to overweight. This is both on a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic basis (6-12 months). In our model bond portfolio, we have added two percentage points to our recommended UK corporate bond allocation, funded by reducing further our existing underweight on Japanese government bonds. At the sector level, given this positive backdrop for credit performance, we do not see a need to favor lower risk sectors with a DTS score below that of the overall UK investment grade index. On that basis, we are looking to go overweight sectors with higher relatively higher DTS and positive risk-adjusted spread residuals from our relative value model (and vice versa). Those overweight candidates would ideally be located in the upper right quadrant of Chart 17. Based on the latest output from the relative value model, the strongest overweight candidates are the following UK investment grade sectors: selected Financials (Insurance, Subordinated Bank Debt, and Other Financials), Media Entertainment, Cable Satellite, Tobacco, Diversified Manufacturing, and Communications. The least attractive sectors within this framework are: Packaging, Lodging, REITs, Other Industrials, Metals, Natural Gas, Restaurants, Transportation Services, Financial Institutions, and Midstream Energy. Bottom Line: The BoE is supporting the UK investment grade corporate bond market with an unprecedented level and pace of purchases. Spreads have already begun to tighten in response but are still at attractive levels. Upgrade UK investment grade corporates to overweight on a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Across credit tiers, favor Aa-rated debt. Across sectors, favor debt from sectors such as non-bank Financials and Communications that are less exposed to pandemic-related uncertainty but still benefit from the CBPS.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate shaktis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "US Storage Tightens, Pushing WTI Lower", dated April 16, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis", dated March 31 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Other Industrials has an index duration of 28.6 years, compared to 8.5 years for the overall UK investment grade corporate bond index. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

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

Highlights Global shortages of medical equipment – including medicines – are frontloaded until emergency production kicks in. As the crisis abates, political recriminations between the US and China will surge. The US will seek to minimize medical supply exposure to China going forward, a boon for India and Mexico. China has escaped the COVID-19 crisis with minimal impact on food supply. Pork prices are surging due to African Swine Flu, but meat is a luxury. Still, the “Misery Index” is spiking and this will increase social instability. Food insecurity, inflation, and large current account deficits suggest that emerging market currencies will remain under pressure. Turkey and South Africa stand to suffer while we remain overweight Malaysia. Feature Chart 1Collapse In Economic Activity Collapse In Economic Activity Collapse In Economic Activity With a third of the world population under some form of lockdown, general activity in the world’s manufacturing powerhouses has collapsed (Chart 1). The breakdown is a double whammy on market fundamentals. On the supply side, government-mandated containment efforts force workers in non-essential services to stay home while, on the demand side, households confined to their homes are unable to spend. Acute demand for medical supplies is causing shortages, while supply disruptions threaten states that lack food security. While global monetary and fiscal stimulus will soften the blow (Chart 2), the economic shock is estimated to be a 2% contraction in real GDP for every month of strict isolation. If measures are extended beyond April, markets will sell and new stimulus will be applied. Already the US Congress is negotiating the $1-$2 trillion infrastructure package that we discussed in our March 4 report, and cash handouts will be ongoing. When the dust settles the political fallout will be massive. Authoritarian states like China and especially Iran will face greater challenges maintaining domestic stability. Democracies like Italy and the US, which lead the COVID-19 case count, are the most likely to experience a change in leadership (Chart 3). Initially the ruling parties of the democracies are receiving a bump in opinion polling, but this will fade as households will be worse off and will likely vent their grievances at the ballot box. Chart 2 Chart 3 Until a vaccine or treatment is discovered, medical equipment and social distancing are the only weapons against the pandemic. National production is (rightly) being redirected from clothing and cars to masks and ventilators to meet the spike in demand. Will the supply shock cause shortages in food and medicine – essential goods for humankind? In this report we address the impact of COVID-19 on global supply security and assess the market implications. Medical Equipment Shortages Will Spur Protectionism Chart Policymakers are fighting today’s crisis with the tools of the 2008 crisis, but a lasting rebound in financial markets will depend on surmounting the pandemic, which is prerequisite to economic recovery (Table 1). As the US faces the peak of its COVID-19 outbreak, public health officials and doctors are raising the alarm on the shortage of medical supplies. A recent US Conference of Mayors survey reveals that out of the 38% of mayors who say they have received supplies from their state, 84.6% say they are inadequate (Chart 4). Italy serves as a warning: A reported 8% of the COVID-19 cases there are doctors and health professionals, often treating patients without gloves or with compromised protective gear. These workers are irreplaceable and when they succumb the virus cannot be contained. In the US, doctors and nurses are re-using masks and sometimes treating patients behind a mere curtain, highlighting the supply shortage. While the shortages are mainly driven by a surge in demand from both medical institutions and households, they also come from the supply side, particularly China. Factory closures and transportation disruptions in China earlier this year, coupled with Beijing’s government-mandated export curbs, reduced Chinese exports, a major source of US and global supplies (Chart 5). Chart 4 Chart 5 Other countries have imposed restrictions on exports of products used in combating the spread of COVID-19. Following export restrictions by the French, German, and Czech governments in early March, the European Commission intervened on March 15 to ensure intra-EU trade. It also restricted exports of protective medical gear outside of the EU. At least 54 nations have imposed new export restrictions on medical supplies since the beginning of the year.1 Both European and Chinese measures will reduce supplies in the US, the top destination for most of these halted exports (Chart 6). Chart 6 Thus it is no wonder that the Trump administration has rushed to cut import duties and boost domestic production. The administration has released strategic stockpiles and cut tariffs on Chinese medical equipment used to treat COVID-19. With the whole nation mobilized, supply kinks should improve greatly in April. After a debacle in rolling out test kits (Chart 7), the US is rapidly increasing its testing capabilities to manage the crisis, with over a million tests completed as of the end of March (Chart 8). Meanwhile a coalition of companies is taking shape to make face masks. The president has invoked the defense production act to force companies to make ventilators. Chart 7 Chart 8 However, with the pandemic peaking in the US, the hardest-hit regions will continue experiencing shortages in the near term. Shortages are prompting public outcry against the US government for its failure to anticipate and redress supply chain vulnerabilities that were well known and warned against. A report in The New York Times tells how Mike Bowen, owner of Texas-based mask-maker Prestige Ameritech, has advised the past three presidents about the danger in the fact that the US imports 95% of its surgical masks. “Aside from sitting in front of the White House and lighting myself on fire, I feel like I’ve done everything I can,” he said. He is currently inundated with emergency orders from US hospitals. The same report tells of a company called Strong Manufacturers in North Carolina that had to cut production of masks because it depends on raw materials from Wuhan, China, where the virus originated.2 The Trump administration will suffer the initial public uproar, but the US government will also seek to reduce import dependency going forward, and it will likely deflect some of the blame by focusing on the supply risks posed by China. Beijing, for its part, is launching a propaganda campaign against the US to distract from its own failures at home (some officials have even blamed the US for the virus). Meanwhile it is cranking up production and shipping medical supplies to crisis hit areas like Italy to try to repair its global image after having given rise to the virus. In addition, the city of Shenzhen is sending 1.2 million N95 masks to the US on the New England Patriots’ team plane. Even Russia is sending small donations. But these moves work to propagandistic efforts in these countries and will ultimately shame the Americans into taking measures to improve self-sufficiency. Bottom Line: The most important supply shortage amid the global pandemic is that of medical equipment. While these shortages will abate sooner rather than later, the supply chain vulnerabilities they have exposed will trigger new policies of supply redundancy and import substitution. The US in particular will seek to reduce dependency on China. That COVID-19 is aggravating rather than reducing tensions between these states, despite China’s role as a key supplier in a time of need, highlights the secular nature of their rising tensions. The US-China Drug War Shortages of pharmaceuticals are also occurring, despite the fact that the primary pandemic response is necessarily “non-pharmaceutical” (e.g. social distancing). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the first COVID-19 related drug shortage in the US on February 27. While the specific drug was not disclosed, the announcement notes that “the shortage is due to an issue with manufacturing of an active pharmaceutical ingredient used in the drug.”3 The FDA is monitoring 20 other (non-critical) drugs potentially at risk of shortages because the sole source is China. The global spread of the pandemic will increase these shortages. On March 3 India announced export restrictions on 26 drugs, including paracetamol and several antibiotics, due to supply disruptions caused by the Chinese shutdown. While Chinese economic activity has since picked up, India is now among the string of countries under a nationwide lockdown. Similar measures enforced across Europe will also hamper the production and transportation of these goods. The implication is that even if Chinese drugs return to market, supplies further down the chain and from alternative suppliers will take a hit. The risk that this will evolve into a drug shortage depends on the intensity of the outbreak. Drug companies generally hold 3-6 months’ worth of inventories. Consequently, while inventories are likely to draw as supplies are disrupted, consumers may not experience an outright shortage immediately. In the US, as with equipment and protective gear, the government’s strategic stockpile will buffer against shortfalls in supplies of critical drugs. COVID-19 is aggravating rather than reducing US-China tensions. Nevertheless the supply chain is getting caught up in the larger US-China strategic conflict. Even before the pandemic, the US-China trade war brought attention to the US’s vulnerabilities to China’s drug exports. This dispute is not limited to illicit drugs, as with China’s production of the opioid fentanyl, but also extends to mainstream medicines, as highlighted in the selection of public statements shown in Table 2. Chart Chart 9 How much does the US rely on China for medicine? According to FDA data, just over half of manufacturing facilities producing regulated drugs in finished dosage form for the US market are located abroad, with China’s share at 7% (Chart 9).4 The figures are higher for manufacturing facilities producing active pharmaceutical ingredients, though still not alarming – 72% of the facilities are located abroad, with 13% in China. Of course, high-level data understate China’s influence. The complex nature of global drug supply chains means that the source of finished dosage forms masks dependencies and dominance higher up the supply chain (Figure 1). Chart For instance, active pharmaceutical ingredients produced in Chinese facilities are used as intermediate goods by finished dosage facilities in India as well as China. The FDA reports that Indian finished dosage facilities rely on China for three-quarters of the active ingredients in their generic drug formulations, which are then exported to the US and the rest of the world. Any supply disruption in China – or any other major drug producer – will lead to shortages further down the supply chain. Chart 10 Chinese influence becomes more apparent when the sample is restricted to generic prescription drugs. These are especially relevant because nearly 70% of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, of which more than 90% are dispensed in the generic form. In this case, 87% of ingredient manufacturers and 60% of finished dosage manufacturers are located outside the US, with 17% of ingredient facilities and 8% of dosage facilities in China (Chart 10). Of all the facilities that manufacture active ingredients that are listed on the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines List – a compilation of drugs that are considered critical to the health system – 71% are located aboard with 15% located in China (Chart 11). Moreover, manufacturers are relatively inflexible when adapting to market conditions and shortages. Drug manufacturing facilities generally operate at above 80% of their capacity and are thus left with little immediate capacity to ramp up production in reaction to shortages elsewhere. In addition, manufacturers face challenges in changing ingredient suppliers – there is no centralized source of information on them, and additional FDA approvals are required. The US will look to reduce its dependency on China for its drug supplies regardless of 2020 election outcome. China also has overwhelming dominance in specific categories. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that China makes up 97% of the US antibiotics market.5 Other common drugs that are highly dependent on China for supplies include ibuprofen, acetaminophen, hydrocortisone, penicillin, and heparin (Chart 12). Chart 11 Chart 12 Taking it all together, US vulnerability can be overstated. Consider the following: Of the 370 drugs on the Essential Medicines List that are marketed in the US, only three are produced solely in China. None of these three are used to treat top ten causes of death in the United States. Import substitution is uneconomical. Foreign companies, especially Chinese companies, are attractive due to their lower costs and lax regulations. While China’s influence extends higher up the supply chain, this is true for US markets as well as other consumer markets. While China can cut off the US from the finished dosages it supplies, it cannot do the same for the ingredients that are used by facilities in other countries and eventually make their way to the US in finished dosage form. Americans are demanding that drug prices be reduced and an obvious solution is looser controls on imports. The recent activation of the Defense Production Act shows that the US can take action to boost domestic production in emergencies. Nevertheless, China is growing conspicuous to the American public due to general trade tensions and COVID-19. As it moves up the value chain, it also threatens increasing competition for the US and its allies. Hence the US government will have a strategic reason to cap China’s influence that is also supported by corporate interests and popular opinion. This will lead to tense trade negotiations with China and meanwhile the US will seek alternative suppliers. China will not want to lose market share or leverage over the United States, so it may offer trade concessions at some point to keep the US engaged. Ultimately, however, strategic tensions will catalyze US policy moves to reduce the cost differential with China and promote its rivals. Pressure on China over its currency, regulatory standards, and scientific-technological acquisition will continue regardless of which party wins the White House in 2020. The Democrats would increase focus on China’s transparency and adherence to international standards, including labor and environmental standards. Both Republicans and Democrats will try to boost trade with allies. The key beneficiaries will be India, Southeast Asia, and the Americas. Taiwan’s importance will grow as a middle-man, but so will its vulnerability to strategic tensions. Bottom Line: The US and the rest of the world are suffering shortfalls of equipment necessary to combat COVID-19. There is also a risk of drug shortages stemming from supply disruptions and emergency protectionist policies. These shortages look to be manageable, but they have exposed national vulnerabilities that will be reduced in future via interventionist trade policies. While the US and Europe will ultimately manage the outbreak, the political fallout will be immense. The US will look to reduce its dependency on China. This will increase investment in non-China producers of active pharmaceutical ingredients, such as India and Mexico. The US tactics against China will vary according to the election result, but the strategic direction of diversifying away from China is clear and will have popular impetus in the wake of COVID-19. Food Security In addition to the challenges posed by COVID-19 on medical supplies, food – another essential good – also faces risk of shortages. China is a case in point. Food prices there were on the rise well before the COVID-19 outbreak, averaging 17.3% in the final quarter of 2019. However inflation was limited to pork and its substitutes – beef, lamb and poultry – and reflected a reduction in pork supplies on the back of the African Swine Flu outbreak. While year-on-year increases in the prices of pork and beef averaged 102.8% and 21.0%, respectively, grain, fresh vegetable, and fresh fruit prices averaged 0.6%, 1.5%, and -5.0% in Q42019 (Chart 13). Chart 13Chinese Inflation Has (Thus far) Been Contained To Pork Chinese Inflation Has (Thus far) Been Contained To Pork Chinese Inflation Has (Thus far) Been Contained To Pork Chart 14China's Misery Index Is Spiking - A Political Liability China's Misery Index Is Spiking - A Political Liability China's Misery Index Is Spiking - A Political Liability However China’s COVID-19 containment measures had a more broad-based impact on food supplies, threatening to push up China’s Misery Index (Chart 14). Travel restrictions, roadblocks, quarantined farm laborers, and risk-averse truck drivers introduced challenges not only in ensuring supplies were delivered to consumers, but also to daily farm activity and planting. The absence of farm inputs needed for planting such as seeds and fertilizer, and animal feed for livestock, was especially damaging in regions hardest hit by the pandemic. Livestock farmers already struggling with swine flu-related reductions in herd sizes were forced to prematurely cull starving animals, cutting the stock of chicken and hogs. Now as the country transitions out of its COVID-19 containment phase and moves toward normalizing activity (Chart 15), food security is top of the mind. Authorities are emphasizing the need to ensure sufficient food supplies and adopt policies to encourage production.6 This is especially important for crops due to be planted in the spring. Delayed or reduced plantings would weight on the quality and quantity of the crops, pushing prices up. Chart 15 With food estimated to account for 19.9% of China’s CPI basket – 12.8% of which goes towards pork (Chart 16) – a prolonged food shortage, or a full-blown food crisis, would be extremely damaging to Chinese families and their pocketbooks. Chart 16 However, apart from soybeans and to a lesser extent livestock, China’s inventories are well stocked (Chart 17) and are significantly higher than levels amid the 2006-2008 and 2010-2012 food crises. Inventories have been built up specifically to provide ammunition precisely in times of crisis. Corn and rice stocks are capable of covering consumption for nearly three quarters of a year, and wheat stocks exceeding a year’s worth of consumption. Thus, while not completely immune, China today is better able to weather a supply shock. Moreover, with the exception of soybeans, China is not overly dependent on imports for agricultural supplies (Chart 18). Chart 17   Chart 18 As the COVID-19 epicenter shifts to the US and Europe, farmers there are beginning to face the same challenges. Reports of delays in the arrival of shipments of inputs such as fertilizer and seeds have prompted American farmers to prepare for the worst and order these goods ahead of time. Chart 19 While these proactive measures will help reduce risks to supply, farmers in Europe and parts of the US who typically rely on migrant laborers will need to search for alternative laborers as the planting season nears. Just last week France’s agriculture minister asked hairdressers, waiters, florists, and others that find themselves unemployed to take up work in farms to ensure food security. As countries become increasingly aware of the risks to food supplies, some have already introduced protectionist measures, especially in the former Soviet Union: The Russian agriculture ministry proposed setting up a quota for Russian grain exports and has already announced that it is suspending exports of processed grains from March 20 for 10 days. Kazakhstan suspended exports of several agricultural goods including wheat flour and sugar until at least April 15. On March 27, Ukraine’s economy ministry announced that it was monitoring wheat export and would take measures necessary to ensure domestic supplies are adequate. Vietnam temporarily suspended rice contracts until March 28 as it checked if it had sufficient domestic supplies. The challenge is that, unlike China, inventories in the rest of the world are not any higher than during the previous food crisis and do not provide much of a buffer against supply shortfalls (Chart 19). Higher food prices would be especially painful to lower income countries where food makes up a larger share of household spending (Chart 20). In addition to using their strategic food stockpiles, governments will attempt to mitigate the impact of higher food prices by implementing a slew of policies: Chart 20 Trade policies: Producing countries will want to protect domestic supplies by restricting exports – either through complete bans or export quotas. Importing countries will attempt to reduce the burden of higher prices on consumers by cutting tariffs on the affected goods. Consumer-oriented policies: Importing countries will provide direct support to consumers in the form of food subsidies, social safety nets, tax reductions, and price controls. Producer-oriented policies: Governments will provide support to farmers to encourage greater production using measures such as input subsidies, producer price support, or tax exemptions on goods used in production. While these policies will help alleviate the pressure on consumers, they also result in greater government expenditures and lower revenues. Thus, subsidizing the import bill of a food price shock can weigh on public finances, debt levels, and FX reserves. Currencies already facing pressure due to the recessionary environment, such as Turkey, South Africa and Chile will come under even greater downward pressure. Food inventories ex-China are insufficient to protect against supply shortages. Bottom Line: COVID-19’s logistical disruptions are challenging farm output. This is especially true when transporting goods and individuals across borders rather than within countries. This will be especially challenging for food importing countries, as some producers have already started erecting protectionist measures and this will result in an added burden on government budgets that are already extended in efforts to contain the economic repercussions of the pandemic. Investment Implications Chart 21Ag Prices Inversely Correlated With USD Ag Prices Inversely Correlated With USD Ag Prices Inversely Correlated With USD China will continue trying to maximize its market share and move up the value chain in drug production. At the same time, the US is likely to diversify away from China and try to cap China’s market share. This will result in tense trade negotiations regardless of the outcome of the US election. The COVID-19 experience with medical shortages and newfound public awareness of potential medical supply chain vulnerabilities means that another round of the trade war is likely. Stay long USD-CNY. Regarding agriculture, demand for agricultural commodities is relatively inelastic. This inelasticity should prevent a complete collapse in prices even amid a weak demand environment. Thus given the risk on supplies, prices face upward pressure. However, not all crops are facing these same market dynamics. While wheat and rice prices have started to move in line with the dynamics described above, soybeans and to a greater extent corn prices have not reacted as such (Chart 21). In the case of soybeans, we expect demand to be relatively muted. China accounts for a third of the world’s soybean consumption. 80% of Chinese soybeans are crushed to produce meal to feed China’s massive pork industry. However, the 21% y/y decline in pork output in 2019 on the back of the African Swine Flu outbreak will weigh on demand and mute upward pressures on supplies. Demand for corn will also likely come in weak. The COVID-19 containment measures and the resulting halt in economic activity reduce demand for gasoline and, as a consequence, reduce demand for corn-based ethanol, which is blended with gasoline. In addition to the above fundamentals, ag prices have been weighed down by a strong USD which makes ex-US exporters relatively better off, incentivizing them to raise exports and increase global supplies. A weaker USD – which we do not see in the near term – would help support ag prices. It is worth noting that if there is broad enforcement of protectionist measures, then producers will not be able to benefit from a stronger dollar. In that case we may witness a breakdown in the relationship between ag prices and the dollar. In light of these supply/demand dynamics, we expect rice and wheat prices to be well supported going forward and to outperform corn and soybeans.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See "Tackling COVID-19 Together: The Trade Policy Dimension," Global Trade Alert, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, March 23, 2020. 2 See Rachel Abrams et al, "Governments and Companies Race to Make Masks Vital to Virus Fight," The New York Times, March 21, 2020. 3 The announcement also notes that there are other alternatives that can be used by patients. See "Coronavirus (COVID-19) Supply Chain Update," US FDA, February 27, 2020. 4 All regulated drugs include prescription (brand and generic), over the counter, and compounded drugs. 5 Please see Huang, Yanzhong, "The Coronavirus Outbreak Could Disrupt The US Drug Supply," Council on Foreign Relations, March 5, 2020. 6 The central government ordered local authorities to allow animal feed to pass through checkpoints amid the lockdowns. In addition, Beijing has relaxed import restrictions by lifting a ban on US poultry products and announcing that importers could apply for waivers on goods tariffed during the trade war such as pork and soybeans. The lifting of these restrictions also serves to help China meet its phase one trade deal commitments. Please see "Coronavirus hits China’s farms and food supply chain, with further spike in meat prices ahead," South China Morning Post, dated February 21, 2020.

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 In contrast to the low-inflation experience of the euro area and other developed market countries over the past several years, the structural backdrop has and will continue to favor inflation in central European (CE) economies. Over the coming 6-12 months, this secular rise in inflation will be interrupted. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced policymakers to cause a “sudden stop” in economic activity in most major countries around the world, implying that inflation is set to trend lower this year. At the same time, the crisis is also spurring a policy response that is likely to reinforce the inflationary structural dynamics in these economies over the medium-term. Central European currencies are likely to depreciate further versus the euro and US dollar this year, but will appreciate versus other EM currencies. Regional equity investors should underweight CE stock markets versus the euro area, but overweight them versus an EM equity benchmark. Feature BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) team has written periodically about Central European (CE) economies.1 In these reports, our overreaching theme for CE economies has been that labor shortages are causing strong wage growth, which is exerting inflationary pressures on domestic economies. In this Special Report we briefly review the basis for this theme, and detail how the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to temporarily interrupt structurally rising central European inflation. We conclude with the implications for PLN, CZK, and HUF, versus both emerging market currencies and the euro, as well as the attendant implications for central European fixed-income and equity markets. The Structural Forces Stoking Central European Inflation: A Brief Review In contrast to the low-inflation experience of the euro area and other developed market countries, the structural trend favors inflation in central European (CE) economies. Chart I-1 shows that this trend has already been manifesting itself; various measures of consumer price inflation have been rising in Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, the three main CEs of focus for BCA’s EMS team. Rising unit labor costs arising from labor shortages have been driving the inflationary backdrop, as evidenced by the following: Chart I-1Inflationary Pressures Are Rising Across Central Europe Inflationary Pressures Are Rising Across Central Europe Inflationary Pressures Are Rising Across Central Europe Chart I-2Scarcity Of Labor In CE ##br##And Germany Scarcity Of Labor In CE And Germany Scarcity Of Labor In CE And Germany     First, our labor shortage proxy – calculated as number of job vacancies divided by the number of unemployed people – remains elevated in all CE and continues rising in the Czech Republic and Hungary, while slightly rolling over in Poland (Chart I-2). Meanwhile, Germany’s labor shortage proxy also is elevated and rising (see discussion below). A breakdown of this proxy’s components reveals that the number of job vacancies continues to climb, while the number of unemployed people continues falling (Chart I-3A & I-3B). Chart I-3AA Breakdown Of Our Labor Shortage Proxy A Breakdown Of Our Labor Shortage Proxy A Breakdown Of Our Labor Shortage Proxy Chart I-3BA Breakdown Of Our Labor Shortage Proxy A Breakdown Of Our Labor Shortage Proxy A Breakdown Of Our Labor Shortage Proxy Second, wage growth, overall and manufacturing, has been rising faster than productivity growth. This implies that unit labor costs have been rising acutely in these economies (Chart I-4). Third, firms are more like to pass on cost increases to consumers when profit margins are lower, meaning that rising wages have been likely been stoking consumer price inflation over the past 5 years. Fourth, German outsourcing has anecdotally been noted as being an important driver of high demand for labor in the manufacturing hubs of Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic, which is consistent with the elevated labor shortage proxy for Germany noted above. While it is difficult to approximate the exact amount of outsourcing activity that is occurring between Germany and CE economies, we offer a few perspectives below: Intra-European trade between Germany and CE has swelled over the past two decades. Rising bilateral trade is consistent with outsourcing, in that it reflects intermediate goods being exported to CE for production and subsequently imported back into Germany for final assembly. Low labor costs in CE appear to have led firms to outsource their production from Germany to CE economies. Chart I-5, top panel, shows that production volumes have been rising at much quicker pace in CE than in Germany over the past decade, in response to a large CE labor cost advantage over Germany (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Chart I-4Labor Shortages = Rising Unit Labor Costs Labor Shortages = Rising Unit Labor Costs Labor Shortages = Rising Unit Labor Costs Chart I-5Cheap Labor = Job Outsourcing Cheap Labor = Job Outsourcing Cheap Labor = Job Outsourcing Manufacturing employment over the past decade has also grown considerably quicker in CE economies than in Germany, which signifies that increased CE production volumes are being driven by rising labor inputs, not just increased capital. Finally, CE withstood quite well the manufacturing recession in Germany in 2019. Bottom Line: Employment and income growth across the CE had been robust until now. COVID-19: A Near-Term Deflationary Event While the secular outlook for CE economies is inflationary, the opposite is true for the coming 6-12 months. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a “sudden stop” in economic activity in most major countries around the world, as policymakers implement strict physical distancing measures to try and slow the spread of the disease and avoid a collapse in their respective health care systems. Aggressive and swift measures have been taken across CE, and more quickly than in some euro area countries. This is positive in the sense that it should shorten the period of time that aggressive control measures should be required, but negative in the sense that it will also lead to a more acute domestic shock to the economy in the near term. This, in turn, implies that inflation is set to trend lower for a time, as Chart I-6 underscores that core inflation in CE economies is fairly reliably correlated with lagged growth in final demand. In addition, Chart I-7 highlights that core inflation in CE economies is also fairly correlated with the German manufacturing PMI, underscoring that the deflationary shock in the euro area economy from physical distancing measures is also likely to reverberate back to central Europe. Chart I-6COVID-19 Shock Will Hit Final Demand And Inflation COVID-19 Shock Will Hit Final Demand And Inflation COVID-19 Shock Will Hit Final Demand And Inflation Chart I-7German Manufacturing Versus ##br##CE Inflation German Manufacturing Versus CE Inflation German Manufacturing Versus CE Inflation However, over the medium-term, the COVID-19 pandemic has also spurred a policy response that is likely to reinforce the inflationary structural dynamics in these economies. It also occurred at a moment of relative cyclical strength, which should limit the duration of the disinflation/deflationary episode for CE economies: Monetary policy in CE economies has been ultra-loose over the past few years, and is set to remain so for the coming 6-12 months (at a minimum). This ultra-loose policy has depressed lending and mortgage rates (Chart I-8), and had already aggressively stimulated manufacturing and construction activity. Owing to the severity of the shock, policymakers are likely to lag a recovery in economic activity once physical distancing measures are removed, suggesting that interest rates will create incentives to bring forward aggregate demand even more intensely than before the pandemic. Chart I-8Policy In CE is Ultra Accommodative Policy In CE is Ultra Accommodative Policy In CE is Ultra Accommodative On the fiscal front, public debt dynamics in CE countries are not precarious. Namely, interest rates at below nominal growth, which satisfies a pre-condition of public debt sustainability. This leeway will allow policymakers to expand fiscal spending aggressively. Critically, the average household credit to GDP within CE is amongst the lowest in EM and DM economies (Chart I-9). As such, household debt deflation is not a risk, meaning that CE likely faces an “income statement” rather than a “balance sheet” recession. This implies that aggregate demand will recover faster in central Europe than in other, debt-laden economies. Economic momentum was stronger in CE economies going into the crisis, as evidenced by elevated final demand in the region. This is corroborated by strong money and credit growth in the region, as well as positive and rising output gaps (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Household Leverage is Low... Household Leverage is Low... Household Leverage is Low... Chart I-10...Which Entices Strong Credit Growth ...Which Entices Strong Credit Growth ...Which Entices Strong Credit Growth Bottom Line: Despite the imminent deflationary risk, ultra-accommodative polices alongside labor shortages will keep final demand more resilient in CE. This will lead most likely to a faster recovery in domestic growth indicators. Investment Implications On the currency front, there are several important factors to consider concerning the performance of CE currencies versus the euro and EM currencies respectively. Judging the likely direction of CE currencies is crucial, as that assessment heavily influences our fixed-income and equity recommendations. First, it is noteworthy that CE currencies have been breaking down versus the euro since the COVID-19 outbreak (Chart I-11). We see the following factors driving CE currency pairs versus the euro in the near term: European and foreign investor ownership of CE local currency bonds and equities is high, especially in Poland and Hungary (Chart I-12). As such, these markets are at risk of foreign outflows from European and foreign investors. Chart I-11CE Currencies Are Breaking ##br##Down CE Currencies Are Breaking Down CE Currencies Are Breaking Down Chart I-12Foreign Holding Of Polish And Hungarian Assets Foreign Holding Of Polish And Hungarian Assets Foreign Holding Of Polish And Hungarian Assets The global risk-off environment makes these local markets unfavorable to foreign investors. External debt levels are high across the region, particularly for non-financial corporates and banks (Chart I-13). Even though intra EU exports cover more than half of CE external debt, collapsing exports over the next few months will temporarily put a strain on foreign debtors. As of December 2019, exports of Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic to EU member were contracting. Chart I-13External Debt Is High In CE External Debt Is High In CE External Debt Is High In CE Finally, CE foreign exchange valuations based on unit labor costs are not cheap (Chart I-14). On the other hand, the euro is comparably cheap and will contribute to a faster recovery in German exports. In hand, demand for German goods are artificially supported by ultra-accommodative monetary policy from the ECB. Chart I-14CE Currencies Are Not Cheap CE Currencies Are Not Cheap CE Currencies Are Not Cheap Second, CE economies are still viewed by many investors as developing economies, and thus their currencies have been dragged down by the sharp selloff in EM FX over the past few weeks. Relative to other EM currencies, however, the downside risk facing CE currencies over the coming 6-12 months is much lower: Chart I-15CE Currencies Have Low Correlation With Commodities CE Currencies Have Low Correlation With Commodities CE Currencies Have Low Correlation With Commodities CE currencies exhibit lower correlation with commodity prices (Chart I-15). The risk of an outright deflationary spiral in CE is much less likely than in other EMs, especially in Poland and Hungary (see discussion above). Balance of payment dynamics remain supportive for CE currencies relative to other EMs. In particular, positive trade balances have historically been an important supporting factor for these crosses against both the US dollar and euro in the medium term. More importantly, foreign portfolio flows have been weak over the past few years, especially in Poland and Hungary. Also, ownership of local currency government bonds in both countries has been lower than in many other EM markets. Considering the above, and BCA’s EMS team’s existing positioning, we recommend the following over the coming 6-12 months: Currencies and Fixed Income Markets: Portfolio outflows and a comparatively cheap euro warrant CE currency depreciation versus both the euro and US dollar. Yet, better balance of payments dynamics and strong domestic fundamentals warrant CE currencies to appreciate versus EM currencies. Within CE, we continue to favor the CZK versus the PLN and HUF. Czech rates have risen above both Polish and Hungarian rates, which will support the CZK. Further, Polish and Hungarian policies have been behind the curve relative to Czech ones in regard to inflation. That said, we recommend overweighting CE local currency government versus EM GBI local currency bond benchmark due to favorable currency movements in CE versus EM. For fixed income investors, Polish and Hungarian local currency government spreads versus German bunds are at risk of widening (Chart I-16). Meanwhile, Czech rates have widened already considerably versus German bunds. Equity Markets: BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team continues to recommend that investors underweight CE equities relative to a euro area equity benchmark. Historically, CE equities have underperformed the euro area whenever EM equities underperformed DM equities (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Government Bond ##br##Spreads Government Bond Spreads Government Bond Spreads Chart I-17Continue To Underweight CE Equities Vs. Euro Area Continue To Underweight CE Equities Vs. Euro Area Continue To Underweight CE Equities Vs. Euro Area Within an EM equity portfolio, we recommend overweighting CE equities relative to the EM benchmark. Currency trends are critical for relative performance of equities. We expect CE currencies to appreciate versus EMs currencies, even though they will depreciate versus the euro. Over the medium to longer run, the structurally inflationary forces in CE economies that we have noted will return, arguing from a valuation perspective that the long-term risk to CE currencies is to the downside versus DM currencies. However, over the coming 6-12 months the pandemic, the response of policymakers, and its aftermath will be the primary driver of CE currencies. We will update investors on changes to our outlook for central Europe as the situation evolves, and as the structural forces that we have described draw nearer. Stay tuned!   Andrija Vesic, Associate Editor Emerging Markets Strategy andrijav@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Central Europe: Beware Of An Inflation Outbreak," dated June 21, 2017, Weekly Report "Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe" dated October 31, 2019, Weekly Report "The RMB: Depreciation Time?" May 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com

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.