Policy

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

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

Highlights Financial markets are in a state of upheaval, and no one knows where or when they’ll bottom: We reiterate that it’s too early to dive back into equities or spread product. The policy path is not nearly as clear as it was during the last crisis, and central banks and legislatures may be hard-pressed to blunt the effects of a pandemic until it’s contained: Developed-world central banks and legislatures are committed to doing whatever they can to aid their economies, but their measures won’t gain full traction until the coronavirus is bottled up. Uncertainty breeds opportunities, however, … : There’s a good chance that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater as the selling accentuates and turns indiscriminate. … so we’re seeking out the most attractive risk-reward profiles: Those with cash who keep their head may find multiple opportunities to earn outsized profits. We’re actively trying to insulate ourselves from the current surge of emotion. Feature We don’t know. We don’t know where stocks will bottom, or when. We don’t know how much the economy will contract, or how long second-round effects will extend the recession. We don’t know how many businesses will go bust, or how many people will lose jobs and default on mortgages and other loans. But no one ever does in the midst of crashes, or when a sudden-stop economic tsunami looms, and only the foolish, naïve or arrogant think they do. Investing is never a sure thing, and its difficulty is a feature, not a bug. Alpha is earned by correctly intuiting securities’ future direction from a limited number of data points. We were slow to grasp the global health ramifications of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, and the probability of a 2020 recession turned out to be considerably larger than we judged. We were also off the mark when we said the economy would likely bottom swiftly, roughly tracing the course of a V. We did not foresee the economically crippling strictures that would be imposed to slow COVID-19’s spread. We now recognize that the recession will be quite severe and that the market rout has further to go for as long as the self-reinforcing adverse consequences from quarantine-like conditions continue unabated. We suspect that markets are giving short shrift to the idea that something could short-circuit the vicious circle, however, and on that basis we think the outlook may not be as unrelentingly gloomy as market action is making it out to be. To be clear, we do not think risk assets have bottomed. We do not think investors should be in any rush whatsoever to buy stocks or spread product. Investors with cash should not lose sight of the fact that they are in control right now, and they should strike a hard bargain before parting with it. We still have a constructive 12-month view, however, and we do think investors should be making lists of assets they find attractive and the prices where they’d happily own them. We sketch out the reasons why across the following pages, but the nature of the analysis departs from our typical data-driven process. Market action has left the data far behind as investors have rushed to apply valuation haircuts in advance of economic releases that are sure to be dreadful. We are therefore pulling our focus out to 30,000 feet in this report, and highlighting the mindset we’re trying to bring to the task of navigating markets caught in the throes of peak fear. Crises Happen [W]hen the crisis began, governments around the world were too slow to act. When action came, it was late and inadequate. Policy was always behind the curve, always chasing an escalating crisis. And as the crisis intensified and more dramatic government action was required, the emergency actions meant to provide confidence and reassurance too often added to public anxiety and to investor uncertainty. The force of government support was not comprehensive or quick enough to withstand the deepening pressure brought on by a weakening economy. … We believe that the policy response has to be comprehensive, and forceful. There is more risk and greater cost in gradualism than in aggressive action. We believe that action has to be sustained until recovery is firmly established.1 Monetary and fiscal policy measures can still move markets, but their full effect won't be felt until the coronavirus is contained. Here we go again. Confronted with freefalling markets and the prospect of widespread business failures, Congress is preparing a gigantic fiscal stimulus package aimed at limiting the second-order effects of the crippling measures implemented to stem COVID-19’s spread and the Fed has already raided its 2008-9 playbook (Table 1). Officials could lift much of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s 2009 remarks announcing the stress tests to explain the rationale for the measures they’re proposing now. The difference is that policymakers in 2008 and 2009 could directly wield their monetary and fiscal tools to backstop a wobbling banking system, whereas now, the potent resources they’ve marshaled to spur the economy won’t be able to take full effect until the pandemic recedes. Table 1Borrowing From The 2008-09 Playbook Data Independent Data Independent As much as investors pine for a policy measure that puts a firewall around markets, and the cumulative global monetary and fiscal responses become truly substantial, the selloff may continue to rage until withering deleveraging pressure abates. The pattern may be very similar to 2009, when the S&P 500 didn’t bottom until four weeks after the financial crisis effectively ended upon Secretary Geithner’s pledge that the Treasury would provide sufficient capital to any of the largest 19 banks that failed the stress tests (Chart 1). Chart 1Deleveraging Pressure Might Drag On Stocks Even After Policymakers Fire Their Bazookas Deleveraging Pressure Might Drag On Stocks Even After Policymakers Fire Their Bazookas Deleveraging Pressure Might Drag On Stocks Even After Policymakers Fire Their Bazookas One Damn Thing After Another As we noted at the outset, investors are currently bedeviled by a multitude of significant unknowns about the coronavirus. Even epidemiologists don’t know if social distancing measures will be enough to arrest its spread within the US, how severe the mortality rate will be, or how long it will take to develop more effective treatment protocols. The current plunge was triggered by a pandemic that hadn’t occurred on a similar scale since the 1918-19 Spanish influenza outbreak, but significant unknowns are at the heart of every financial market panic. We were in the audience at the Economic Club of New York in October 2007, during the early stages of the subprime crisis, when Fed Chair Bernanke, asked what market and economic information he would like to have to improve the Fed’s decision-making process, replied, “I’d like to know what those damn things [securitized credit products] are worth.”2 Markets’ Outstanding Characteristic As Benjamin Graham pointed out repeatedly in The Intelligent Investor, markets have a deeply entrenched tendency to overreact. “The market is always making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating ordinary vicissitudes into major setbacks.”3 “[W]hen an individual company … begins to lose ground in the economy, Wall Street is quick to assume that its future is entirely hopeless and it should be avoided at any price.”4 “[T]he outstanding characteristic of the stock market is its tendency to react excessively to favorable and unfavorable influences.”5 In times of severe stress, the market tendency to overreact at the individual-stock level radiates out to the entire market. As the buzzards circle, and the margin calls arrive, investors scramble to sell stocks that have managed to dodge the brunt of the decline, and therefore bring something closer to their perceived fair value than the stocks that have already been savaged. In Dennis Gartman’s memorable phrasing, “when the cops raid the house of ill repute, they take away the good girls and the piano player, too.” The indiscriminate selling that draws better stocks into the vortex creates opportunities, and it seems to us that there must be many sound issues that are being tarred with the same brush as companies in the travel, hospitality, restaurant and brick-and-mortar retail industries, and the oil producers who are caught in the Russia-Saudi Arabia crossfire. Outstanding Investors’ Characteristics About 25 years ago, we read the Market Wizards profiles of elite traders before interviewing for trading positions with broker-dealers. We distilled them into seven characteristics of successful traders that were at the heart of our pitch: Competitiveness, Humility, Ability to Psychologically Handle Losses, Patience, Discipline, Emotional Detachment and Willingness to Be a Contrarian. We haven’t worked on a trading desk in a while, but those qualities would suit all investors, and we think they’re especially apropos at times of peak emotion. No one can manufacture them out of nothing, but by keeping them in mind, and trying to live up to them, we can draw on the reserves we do possess to make better decisions in the midst of the rout (Table 2). Cash is precious right now, and investors should part with it only when they're certain they're getting quite a bit in return. Table 2Honing One's Mental Edge Data Independent Data Independent What Now? We reiterate that it is too early to re-risk portfolios. Markets in the throes of daily convulsions are not healthy markets, and we do not expect that stocks will bottom until there is evidence that the global virus infection curve is flattening. Investors should always prune or exit positions that have become poor fits as the backdrop changes, but we would not dramatically alter asset allocation strategies now. Take a deep breath, and focus on the internal aspects you can control. Cash is precious during major selloffs, because it stabilizes portfolios while the storm rages and provides valuable optionality when it inevitably ends. We would deploy it slowly, via limit orders below the market in selected stocks that have been unfairly lumped in with the most vulnerable issues. We continue to embrace the idea of writing out-of-the-money puts in stocks we would happily own at lower levels. When the VIX spent most of last week in the 70s and 80s (Chart 2), implied volatilities on single-stock options soared into the triple digits. In the four largest banks, it was possible to earn an annualized return exceeding 100% by writing an April put between 12 and 15% below last sale (Box, page 8). Similar opportunities must be available in other besieged industries. Chart 2Implied Volatility On S&P 500 Index Options Made A New All-Time High Implied Volatility On S&P 500 Index Options Made A New All-Time High Implied Volatility On S&P 500 Index Options Made A New All-Time High These are unquestionably trying times for investors of all stripes, but they are especially hard on those with long-only mandates. Professional investors add much of their value by saving their clients from themselves – by keeping them from succumbing to the temptation to go all-in near market tops and run screaming from risk assets near market bottoms. We all need to make a conscious effort to overcome counterproductive emotions and impulses when markets plunge; reminders that the general pattern is similar, even if the specific circumstances change, help us to keep our eye on the ball. Trying to live up to the seven items we memorized 25 years ago when trying to secure a junior seat on a trading desk does, too.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Box: Extreme Volatility In SIFI Bank Options There are two possible outcomes for an investor who writes a put option. The option will expire without being exercised, in which case the writer will pocket the premium, or the holder will exercise it, compelling the writer to purchase the stock at the strike price. The writer keeps the premium in that case, too, so that his/her basis in the stock is equivalent to the strike price less the premium. The top panel in Table 3 shows the pricing data for April puts on the four largest banks with strike prices 12 to 15% below Thursday’s closing prices. The bottom panel uses that data to calculate the implied annualized return for each put option in the event that it is not exercised, and the option writer’s basis in the stock as a share of its tangible book value in the event that it is. Table 3Insuring SIFI Equities Is Tremendously Expensive Data Independent Data Independent We understand that banks are on the credit front lines, and that defaults will impair their book value. We further understand that their net interest margins, and therefore their revenues, are pressured by declines in longer-term interest rates, though it is our long-held conviction that markets overestimate the largest banks’ exposure to a flattening yield curve. The decision to own them is hardly a slam dunk, but the cost of insuring against further declines is staggering. We recognize that not every investor has discretion to write puts, and it is not something to be done lightly in any event. Writers of puts on SIFI banks are being paid annualized returns of 100% because equity prices are plunging, and investors are especially worried about banks’ exposure to the spreading pain. The compensation is so high, however, that we think the risk-reward proposition merits careful consideration. It may not be a no-brainer to write puts on the SIFI banks right now, but we certainly wouldn’t buy them at these prices. Footnotes 1 Prepared Remarks by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Introducing the Financial Stability Plan, February 10, 2009. Accessed from https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg18.aspx on March 18, 2020. 2https://www.econclubny.org/legacyarchive/-/blogs/2007-ben-bernanke Accessed on March 18, 2020. The referenced Q&A exchange begins at the 51:49 mark. 3 Graham, Benjamin, The Intelligent Investor, HarperCollins: New York, 2005, p. 97. 4Ibid, p. 15 5Ibid, p. 18

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

Highlights The global pandemic is quickening the decline in globalization. Democracies can manage the virus, but it will be painful. European integration just got a major boost from Germany’s fiscal turn. Stay long the German consumer relative to the exporter. The US and UK are shifting to a “big government” approach for the first time in forty years. Go long TIPS versus equivalent-maturity nominal Treasuries. The US-China cold war is back on, after a fleeting hiatus. Stay short CNY-USD. Stay strategically long gold but go tactically long Brent crude oil relative to gold. Feature The global pandemic blindsided us this year, but it is catalyzing the past decade’s worth of Geopolitical Strategy’s themes. This week’s report is dedicated to our founder and consulting editor, Marko Papic, who spearheaded the following themes, which should be considered in light of this month’s extraordinary developments: The Apex Of Globalization: Borders are closing and the US is quarreling with both Europe and China over vulnerabilities in its medical supply chain. European Integration: Germany is embracing expansive fiscal policy and is softening its line on euro bonds. The End of Anglo-Saxon Laissez-Faire: Senate Republicans in the US are considering “helicopter money” – deficit-financed cash handouts to the public. US-China Conflict: Pandemic, recession, and the US election are combining to make a dangerous geopolitical cocktail. In this report we discuss how the coronavirus crisis is supercharging these themes, making them salient for investors in the near term. New themes will also develop from the crucible of this pandemic and global recession. Households Can’t Spend Helicopter Money Under Quarantine The global financial meltdown continues despite massive monetary and fiscal stimulus by governments across the world (Chart 1). The reason is intuitive: putting cash in people’s hands offers little solace if people are in quarantine or self-isolation and can’t spend it. Stimulus is essential and necessary to defray the costs of a collapsing economy, but doesn’t give any certainty regarding the depth and duration of the recession or the outlook for corporate earnings. Government health policy, rather than fiscal or monetary policy, will provide the critical signals in the near term. Once the market is satisfied that the West is capable of managing the pandemic, then the unprecedented stimulus has the potential to supercharge the rebound. The most important measure is still the number of new daily cases of the novel coronavirus across the world (Chart 2). Once this number peaks and descends, investors will believe the global pandemic is getting under control. It will herald a moment when consumers can emerge from their hovels and begin spending again. Chart 1Monetary/Fiscal Stimulus Not Enough To Calm Markets De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed Chart 2Keep Watching New Daily Cases Of COVID-19 De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed It is critical to see this number fall in Italy, proving that even in cases of government failure, the contagion will eventually calm down (Chart 3). This is essential because it is possible that an Italian-sized crisis could develop in the US or another European country, especially given that unlike Iran, these countries have large elderly populations highly susceptible to the virus. Financial markets are susceptible to more panic until the US and EU show the virus is under control. At the same time the other western democracies still need to prove they are capable of delaying and mitigating the virus now that they are fully mobilized. They should be able to – social distancing works. The province of Lodi, Italy offers an example of successful non-pharmaceutical measures (isolation). It enacted stricter policies earlier than its neighbors and succeeded in turning down the number of daily new cases (Chart 4).1 But it may also be testing less than its wealthier neighbor Bergamo, where the military has recently been deployed to remove corpses. Chart 3Market Needs Italy Contagion To Subside De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed Chart 4Lodi Suggests Social Distancing Works De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed More stringent measures, including lockdowns, are necessary in “hot zones” where the outbreak gets out of control. It is typical of democracies to mobilize slowly, in war or other crises. Italy brought the crisis home for the G7 nations, jolting them into unified action under Mario Draghi’s debt-crisis slogan of “whatever it takes.” Borders are now closed, schools and gatherings are canceled, policy and military forces are deploying, and emergency production of supplies is under way. Populations are responding to their leaders. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator once the danger is clearly demonstrated. Still, in the near term, Spain, Germany, France, the UK, and the United States have painful battles to fight to ensure they do not become the next Italy, with an overloaded medical system leading to a vicious spiral of infections and deaths (Chart 5). Chart 5Painful Battles Ahead For US And EU De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed Until financial markets verify that current measures are working, they are susceptible to panics and selling. In the United States, testing kits were delayed by more than a month because the Center for Disease Control bungled the process and failed to adopt the successful World Health Organization protocol. Some materials for testing kits are still missing. Many states will not begin testing en masse for another two weeks. This means that big spikes in new cases will occur not only now but in subsequent weeks as testing exposes more infections. Over the next month there are numerous such trigger points for markets to panic and give away whatever gains they may have made from previous attempts at a rally. Pure geopolitical risks, outlined below, reinforce this reasoning. Volatility will continue to be the dominant theme. Governments must demonstrate successes in health crisis management before monetary and fiscal measures can have their full effect. There is no amount of stimulus that can compensate for the collapse of consumer spending in advanced consumer societies (Chart 6), so consumers’ health must be put on a better trajectory first. Thus in place of economic and financial data streams, we are watching our Health Policy Checklist (Table 1) to determine if policy measures can provide reassurance to the economy and financial markets. Chart 6No Stimulus Can Offset Collapse Of Consumer No Stimulus Can Offset Collapse Of Consumer No Stimulus Can Offset Collapse Of Consumer Table 1Markets Need To See Health Policy Succeeding De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed Bottom Line: For financial markets to regain confidence durably, governments must show they can manage the outbreak. This can be done but the worst is yet to come and markets will not be able to recover sustainably over the next month or two during that process. There is more upside for the US dollar and more downside for global equities ahead. The Great Fiscal Blowout Global central banks were not entirely out of options when this crisis hit – the Fed has cut rates to zero, increased asset purchases, and extended US dollar swap lines, while central banks already at the zero bound, like the ECB, have still been able to expand asset purchases radically (Table 2). Table 2Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed Chart 7ECB Still The Lender Of Last Resort ECB Still The Lender Of Last Resort ECB Still The Lender Of Last Resort The ECB’s new 750 billion euro Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) has led to a marked improvement in peripheral bond spreads which were blowing out, guaranteeing that the lender of last resort function remains in place even in the face of a collapse of the Italian economy that will require a massive fiscal response in the future (Chart 7). Nevertheless with rates so low, and government bond yields and yield curves heavily suppressed, investors do not have faith in monetary policy to make a drastic change to the macro backdrop for developed market economies. Fiscal policy was the missing piece. It has remained restrained due to government concerns about excessive public debt. Now the “fiscal turn” in policy has arrived with the pandemic and massive stimulus responses (Table 3). Table 3Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed The Anglo-Saxon world had already rejected budgetary “austerity” in 2016 with Brexit and Trump. Few Republicans dare oppose spending measures to combat a pandemic and deep recession after having voted to slash corporate taxes at the height of the business cycle in 2017.2 The Trump administration is currently vying with the Democratic leadership to see who can propose a bigger third and fourth phase to the current spending plans – $750 billion versus $1.2 trillion? Both presidential candidates are proposing $1 trillion-plus infrastructure plans that are not yet being put to Congress to consider. The Trump administration agrees with its chief Republican enemy, Mitt Romney, as well as former Obama administration adviser Jason Furman, in proposing direct cash handouts to households (“helicopter money”). The size of the US stimulus is at 7% of GDP and rising, larger than in 2008- 10. In the UK, the Conservative Party has changed fiscal course since the EU referendum. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government had proposed an “infrastructure revolution” and the most expansive British budget in decades – and that was before the virus outbreak. Robert Chote, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, captured the zeitgeist by saying, “Now is not a time to be squeamish about public sector debt. We ran during the Second World War budget deficits in excess of 20% of GDP five years on the trot and that was the right thing to do.”3 Now Germany and the EU are joining the ranks of the fiscally accommodative – and in a way that will have lasting effects beyond the virus crisis. Chart 8Coalition Loosened Belt Amid Succession Crisis Coalition Loosened Belt Amid Succession Crisis Coalition Loosened Belt Amid Succession Crisis On March 13 Germany pulled out a fiscal “bazooka” of government support. Finance Minister Olaf Scholz announced that the state bank, KfW, will be able to lend 550bn euros to any business, great or small, suffering amid the pandemic. KfW’s lending capacity was increased from 12% to 15% of GDP. But Scholz, of the SPD, and Economy Minister Peter Altmaier, of the CDU, both insist that there is “no upward limit.” This shift in German policy was the next logical step in a policy evolution that began with the European sovereign debt crisis and took several strides over the past year. The German public, battered by the Syrian refugee crisis, China’s slowdown, and the trade war, voted against the traditional ruling parties, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Smaller parties have been stealing their votes, namely the Greens but also (less so) the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (Chart 8). This competition has thrown the traditional parties into crisis, as it is entirely unclear how they will fare in the federal election in 2021 when long-ruling Chancellor Angela Merkel passes the baton to her as yet unknown successor. To counteract this trend, the ruling coalition began loosening its belt last year with a small stimulus package. But a true game changer always required a crisis or impetus – and the coronavirus has provided that. Germany’s shift is ultimately rooted in geopolitical constraints: Germany is a net beneficiary of the European single market and stands to suffer both economically and strategically if it breaks apart. Integration requires not only the ECB as lender of last resort but also, ultimately, fiscal transfers to keep weaker, less productive peripheral economies from abandoning the euro and devaluing their national currencies. When Germany loosens its belt, it gives license to the rest of Europe to do the same: The European Commission was obviously going to be extremely permissive toward deficits, but it has now made this explicit. Spain announced a massive 20% of GDP stimulus package, half of which is new spending, and is now rolling back the austere structural reforms of 2012. Italy is devastated by the health crisis and is rolling out new spending measures. The right-wing, big spending populist Matteo Salvini is waiting in the wings, having clashed with Brussels over deficits repeatedly in 2018-19 only to see Brussels now coming around to the need for more fiscal action. In addition to spending more, Germany is also sounding more supportive toward the idea of issuing emergency “pandemic bonds” and “euro bonds,” opening the door for a new source of EMU-wide financing. True, the crisis will bring out the self-interest of the various EU member states. For example, Germany initially imposed a cap on medical exports so that critical items would be reserved for Germans, while Italy would be deprived of badly needed supplies. But European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promptly put a stop to this, declaring, “We are all Italians now.” Fiscal policy is now a tailwind instead of a headwind. Von der Leyen is representative of the German ruling elite, but her position is in line with the median German voter, who approves of the European project and an ever closer union. Chart 9DM Budget Deficits Set To Widen DM Budget Deficits Set To Widen DM Budget Deficits Set To Widen Separately, it should be pointed that Japan is also going to loosen fiscal policy further. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was supposed to have already done this according to his reflationary economic policy. His decision to hike the consumer tax in 2014-15 and 2019, despite global manufacturing recessions, ran against the aim of whipping the country’s deflationary mindset. While Abe’s term will end in 2021, Abenomics will continue and evolve by a different name. His successor is much more likely now to follow through with the “second arrow” of Abenomics, government spending. Across the developed markets budget deficits are set to widen and public debt to rise, enabled by low interest rates, surging output gaps, and radical policy shifts that were long in coming (Chart 9). Bottom Line: Ultra-dovish fiscal policy is now complementing ultra-dovish monetary policy throughout the West. This was clear in the US and UK, but now Europe has joined in. Germany’s “bazooka” is the culmination of a policy evolution that began with the European debt crisis. This is an essential step to ensuring that Germany rebalances its economy and that Europe sticks together during and after the pandemic. Europe still faces enormous challenges, but now fiscal policy is a tailwind instead of a headwind. US-China: The Cold War Is Back On US-China tensions are heating back up and could provide the source of another crisis event that exacerbates the “risk off” mode in global financial markets. The underlying strategic conflict never went away – it is rooted in China’s rising geopolitical power relative to the United States. The “phase one” trade deal agreed last fall was a manifestly short-term, superficial deal meant to staunch the bleeding in China’s manufacturing sector and deliver President Trump a victory to take to the 2020 election. Beijing was never going to deliver the exorbitant promises of imports and was not likely to implement the difficult structural provisions until Trump achieved a second electoral mandate. Trump always had the option of accusing China of insufficient compliance, particularly if he won re-election. Now, however, both governments are faced with a global recession and are seeking scapegoats for the COVID-19 crisis. Xi Jinping doesn’t have an electoral constraint but he does have to maintain control of the party and rebuild popular confidence and legitimacy in the wake of the crisis. China’s private sector has suffered a series of blows since Xi took power. China’s trend growth is slowing, it is sitting on an historic debt pile, and it is now facing the deepest recession in modern memory. The protectionist threat from the United States and other nations is likely to intensify amid a global recession. Former Vice President Joe Biden has clinched the Democratic nomination and does not offer a more attractive option for China than President Trump. On the US side, Trump’s economic-electoral constraint is vanishing. Trump’s chances of reelection have been obliterated unless he manages to recreate himself as a successful “crisis president” and convince Americans not to change horses in mid-stream. Primarily this means he will focus on managing the pandemic. Yet it also gives Trump reason to try to change the subject and adopt an aggressive foreign or trade policy, particularly if the virus panic subsides. The economic downside has been removed but there could be political upside to a confrontation with China. The US public increasingly views China unfavorably and is now particularly concerned about medical supply chain vulnerabilities. A diplomatic crisis is already unfolding. China’s propaganda machine has gone into overdrive to distract its populace from the health crisis and recession. The main thrust of this campaign is to praise China’s success in halting the virus’s spread through draconian measures while criticizing the West’s ineffectual response, symbolized by Italy and the United States. This disinformation campaign escalated when Zhao Lijian, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, tweeted that COVID-19 originated in the United States. The conspiracy theory holds that it brought or deployed the coronavirus in China while a military unit visited for a friendly competition in Wuhan in October. A Hong Kong doctor who wrote an editorial exposing this thesis was forced to retract the article. President Trump responded by deliberately referring to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus.” He defended these comments as a way of emphasizing the origin although China and others have criticized the president for dog-whistle racism. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Yang Jiechi, a top Chinese diplomat, met to address the dispute, but relations have only gotten worse. After the meeting China revoked the licenses of several prominent American journalists.4 The fact that conspiracy theories are being spouted by official and semi-official sources in the US and China reflects the dangerous combination of populism, nationalism, and jingoism flaring up in both countries – and the global recession has hardly begun.5 The phase one trade deal may collapse. Investors must now take seriously the possibility that the phase one trade deal will collapse. While China obviously will not meet its promised purchases for the year due to the recession, neither side has abandoned the deal. The CNY-USD exchange rate is still rising (Chart 10). President Trump presumably wants to maintain the deal as a feather in his cap for the election. This means that any failure would come from the China side, as an attack on Trump, or from Trump deciding he is a lame duck and has nothing to lose. These are substantial risks that would blindside the market and trigger more selling. Chart 10US And China Could Abandon Trade Deal US And China Could Abandon Trade Deal US And China Could Abandon Trade Deal Military and strategic tensions could also flare up in the South and East China Seas, the Korean peninsula, or the Taiwan Strait. While we have argued that Korea is an overstated geopolitical risk while Taiwan is understated, at this point both risks are completely off the radar and therefore vastly understated by financial markets. A “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis” could emerge from American deterrence or from Chinese encroachments on Taiwanese security. What is clear is that the US and China are growing more competitive, not more cooperative, as a result of the global pandemic. This is not a “G2” arrangement of global governance but a clash of nationalisms. Another risk is that President Trump would look elsewhere when he looks abroad: conflict with Iran-backed militias in Iraq is ongoing, and both Iran and Venezuela are on the verge of collapse, which could invite American action. A conflict or revolution in Iran would push up the oil price due to regional instability and would have major market-negative implications for Europe. Bottom Line: The US-China trade conflict had only been suspended momentarily. The economic collapse removes the primary constraint on conflict, and the US election is hanging in the balance, so Trump could try to cement his legacy as the president who confronted China. This is a major downside risk for markets even at current crisis lows. Investment Implications What are the market implications of the themes reviewed in this report? First, the virus will precipitate another leg down in globalization, which was already collapsing (Chart 11). Chart 11Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked The US dollar will remain strong in the near term. It is too soon to go long commodities and emerging market currencies and risk assets, though it is notable that our Emerging Markets Strategy has booked profits on its short emerging market equity trade (Chart 12). Chart 12Too Soon To Go Long EM/Commodities Too Soon To Go Long EM/Commodities Too Soon To Go Long EM/Commodities Second, the Anglo-Saxon shift away from laissez faire leads toward dirigisme, an active state role in the economy. US stocks can outperform global stocks amid the global recession, but the rising odds that Trump will lose the election herald a generational anti-corporate turn in US policy. We are strategically long international stocks, which are far more heavily discounted. The combination of de-globalization and dirigisme is ultimately inflationary so we recommend that investors with a long-term horizon go long TIPS versus equivalent-maturity nominal Treasuries, following our US Bond Strategy. Third, Germany, the EU, and the ECB are taking dramatic steps to reinforce our theme of continued European integration. We are strategically long German consumers versus exporters and believe that recommendation should benefit once the virus outbreak is brought under control. There is more downside for EUR-USD in the near term although we remain long on a strategic (one-to-three year) horizon. Fourth, China will not come out the “winner” from the pandemic. It is suffering the first recession in modern memory and is beset by simultaneous internal and external economic challenges. It is also becoming the focus of negative attention globally due to its lack of integration into global standards. Economic decoupling is back on the table as the US may take advantage of the downturn to take protective actions. The US stimulus package in the works should be watched closely for “buy America” provisions and requirements for companies to move onshore. A Biden victory will not remove American “containment policy” directed toward China. Stay strategically long USD-CNY. The chief geopolitical insight from all of the above is that the market turmoil can be prolonged by geopolitical conflict, especially with Trump likely to be a lame duck president. With nations under extreme stress, and every nation fending for itself, the probability of conflicts is rising. We do however see the potential for collapsing oil prices to force Russia and Saudi Arabia back to the negotiating table, so we are initiating a tactical long Brent crude oil / short gold trade. Moreover we remain skeptical toward companies and assets exposed to the US-China relationship, particularly Chinese tech.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Margherita Stancati, "Lockdown of Recovering Italian Town Shows Effectiveness of Early Action," Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2020. 2 The conservatives Stephen Moore, Art Laffer, and Steve Forbes are virtually isolated in opposing the emergency fiscal measures – and will live in infamy for this, their “Mellon Doctrine” moment. 3 Costas Pitas and Andy Bruce, “UK unveils $420 billion lifeline for firms hit by coronavirus,” Reuters, March 17, 2020. 4 China retaliated against The Wall Street Journal for calling China “the sick man of Asia.” The United States responded by reducing the number of Chinese journalists licensed in the US. (Washington had earlier designated China state press as foreign government actors, which limited their permissible actions.) Beijing then ordered reporters from The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post whose licenses were set to expire in 2020 not to return. 5 Inflicting an epidemic on one’s own people is a very roundabout way to cause a global pandemic and harm the United States – obviously that is not what happened in China. It is also absurd to think that the US has essentially initiated World War III by committing an act of bioterrorism against China.

Dear clients, In addition to this short weekly report, you will also receive a Special Report penned by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge on Sweden, with implications for the SEK. I hope you will find the report both useful and insightful. In the interim, I wish safety for you and your families. Best Regards, Chester Ntonifor Highlights The lack of dollar liquidity had been a tailwind behind the dollar bull market. However, an expansion in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet should help stem the global shortage of dollars. Ditto if there is an expansion of swap lines beyond the five major central banks. The risk is that the shortage of dollars has already begun to trigger negative feedback loops in a few countries. Until tentative signs emerge that the global economy is on better footing, expect spikes in the dollar. The caveat is that a big fiscal spending package in the US should lead to a deterioration in the current account. This will improve the offshore dollar liquidity situation. Feature The latest flare-up in risk aversion has also rotated to the offshore dollar funding market. Across G10 countries, US dollar cross-currency basis swaps - a measure of the costs to obtain greenbacks domestically - have been rising at an alarming pace. During the Federal Reserve’s emergency meeting on Sunday, swap lines were extended to five major central banks. The terms were very generous, with costs at the overnight index swap rate + 25 basis points, as well as a maturity of 84 days. However, the following day, the dollar continued its fervent rally, with the euro-US cross-currency basis swap touching -120 points (Chart 1). Chart 1A Broad-Based Funding Crisis A Broad-Based Funding Crisis A Broad-Based Funding Crisis The lack of follow through from the Fed’s liquidity injection highlights a fundamental risk to our sanguine view that the dollar should top out sooner rather than later. While we maintain this view, it has been discouraging that the DXY has broken above 100. We had anticipated a move higher on February 21, prompting us to close our long DXY position for a loss. Today, we suggest waiting for better signposts to short the greenback outright.1 US Dollar Flows The dollar remains the reserve currency of today, with the Fed at the center of the global financial architecture. The process behind dollar shortages is a simple one: Chart 2Global FX Reserve Growth Was Anemic Global FX Reserve Growth Was Anemic Global FX Reserve Growth Was Anemic Countries that are experiencing falling trade balances (because of a trade slowdown or trade war) will see a fall in their foreign exchange reserves. This naturally means that their supply of dollars is declining (Chart 2). Wary of seeing local dollar interest rates rise (leading to a higher dollar, and some companies going bust), central banks could sell dollars to the private sector in exchange for local currency. As a reserve currency, the US trade deficit is also settled in dollars. This naturally leads to a flow of greenbacks outside US borders. However, it also means that the current account deficit finances the budget deficit. Therefore, a falling trade surplus in exporting countries naturally means a falling deficit in the US. In order to stimulate the US economy, the authorities pursue macroeconomic policies that tend to weaken the dollar, such as lowering rates and/or running a wider fiscal deficit. The central bank helps finance this fiscal deficit via expanding the monetary base (Seigniorage). The drop in rates causes the yield curve to steepen. This incentivizes banks to lend, which in turn boosts US money supply. As the economy recovers and demand for imports (machinery, commodities, consumer goods) rises, the current account deficit widens. This leads to a renewed outflow of dollars. It is easy to see where the process can get short-circuited, especially via an external shock. If you accept the premise that the sum of the Fed’s custody holdings together with the US monetary base constitutes the root of global dollar liquidity, then it is not yet accelerating fast enough.2 Like in the past, the Fed has been quick to correct the situation: Recently, it has instituted swap lines. However, they remain inadequate for three key reasons: The swap lines should be extended from the five central banks to many countries, because Covid-19 is now a global pandemic. Not even China (along with other emerging markets) was  included in the swap agreements. The swap lines usually have terms/limits/amounts, which means that even if the domestic central bank decided to be the lender of last resort, it could still run short of dollars. Widespread fiscal measures have been announced, but this has been mostly geared towards sustaining income. Until governments unilaterally backstop airlines, shipping firms, restaurants, or any other company afflicted by the virus from going bankrupt, a negative self-reinforcing feedback loop will remain. Chart 3The Dollar As An Arbiter Of Growth The Dollar As An Arbiter Of Growth The Dollar As An Arbiter Of Growth We continue to recommend standing aside on the dollar until the dust has settled. Longer-term fundamentals suggest a dollar-bearish view, but until the world gets a sense that global growth is bottoming soon, the dollar uptrend remains intact (Chart 3). We continue to use internals and market fundamentals as a guide for when to time a top.3  Finally, we have been stopped out of a few trades and are tightening stops on a few. Please see this week’s trade table for a few recommendations.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report,  “The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar”, dated February 28, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2   Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report,  “Is The World Short Of Dollars?”, dated September 13, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3   Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report,  “Currency Technicals And Market Internals”, dated March 13, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Since 2004, Sweden’s private sector leverage trend can be explained using a simple Taylor rule approach. The approach clearly highlights three distinct monetary policy phases, and underscores the singular role of inflation (not systemic risk from rising indebtedness) as a driving factor for Riksbank policy. Since 2015, the Riksbank has maintained interest rates well below what a Taylor rule approach would suggest, owing to the desire to raise inflation expectations and Sweden’s high trade exposure to the euro area. This highlights strong similarities between the experience of Sweden and Canada: both countries are in the orbit of a major neighboring central bank, which has created serious distortions in both economies. Given the extent of the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, especially in Europe, our assessment of the Riksbank’s reaction function suggests the odds appear to be high that the repo rate will move back into negative territory at some point this year (despite their reluctance to do so). Over the near-term, Swedish policy easing suggests that investors should avoid the krona versus both the US dollar and euro. Over a medium-term time horizon, one implication of a return to negative interest rates is that Swedish house price appreciation is likely to trend higher once the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic ends, potentially to the benefit of Swedish consumer durable and apparel stocks. Finally, over the long-term, Sweden is very likely to face a period of domestic economic stagnation stemming from the extraordinary rise in private sector debt that has built up over the past two decades. The co-ordinated global response to the pandemic suggests that this is not the end of Sweden’s debt supercycle, but timing the transition from reflation to stagnation will be of crucial importance for investors exposed to the domestic Swedish economy over the coming few years. Feature One of the worrying legacies of the global financial crisis has been a substantial buildup in private sector debt in many economies around the world. This has most famously occurred in China, but private indebtedness is also very high in many developed economies. Among advanced countries, Sweden stands out as being particularly exposed to elevated private sector debt. Chart I-1 highlights that Sweden’s private sector debt-to-GDP ratio has ballooned to a massive 250% of GDP over the past 15 years, from a starting point of roughly average indebtedness. Chart I-1Sweden's Extremely Indebted Private Sector Sweden's Extremely Indebted Private Sector Sweden's Extremely Indebted Private Sector In this report we explore why Sweden has seen an explosion in private sector debt-to-GDP, and highlight that Sweden’s experience can be compared closely with that of Canada – both countries are in the orbit of a major neighboring central bank, which has created distortions in each economy. We also summarize what this implies for Riksbank policy, and what investment recommendations can be drawn from our analysis. We conclude that while the Riksbank is clearly reluctant to cut the repo rate after having just existed its negative interest rate position last year, it appears likely that they will forced to do so unless the negative economic impact from the COVID-19 pandemic abates very soon. Over the short-term, this suggests that investors should avoid the Swedish krona, versus either the US dollar or the euro. Why has Sweden seen such an explosion in private-sector debt? Over the medium-term, easy Riksbank policy and the probable absence of any additional macroprudential measures is likely to spur a renewed increase in Swedish house prices and household debt, which will likely benefit consumer durables and apparel stocks relative to the broad Swedish equity market.  But this will reinforce Sweden’s existing credit bubble, and similar to Canada will set the stage for domestic economic stagnation over the very long-term. Riksbank Policy and Sweden’s Private Sector Debt: A Tale Of Three Phases Much of the investor attention on Sweden's extremely high private sector debt load has occurred following the global financial crisis. But Chart I-1 clearly highlights that the process of private sector leveraging began in 2004, arguing that the Riksbank’s easy monetary policy stance following the global financial crisis is not the only cause of Sweden’s extremely elevated private debt-to-GDP ratio. In a previous Special Report for our Global Investment Strategy service,1 we investigated a similar experience in Canada and used a simple Taylor rule approach to show that the Bank of Canada’s decision to maintain interest rates below equilibrium levels for nearly two decades has contributed to a substantial buildup in private sector leverage. A similar approach for Sweden highlights similar conclusions, albeit with some complications: Chart I-2 shows our Taylor rule estimate for Sweden alongside the policy rate, and shows the deviation from the rule in the second panel. Chart I-2Since 2000, Sweden Has Had Three Distinct Monetary Policy Phases Since 2000, Sweden Has Had Three Distinct Monetary Policy Phases Since 2000, Sweden Has Had Three Distinct Monetary Policy Phases Compared with Canada’s experience, which has maintained too-low interest rates consistently for the past 20 years, Chart I-2 shows that the stance of Sweden’s monetary policy since 2000 falls into three distinct phases: Persistently easy policy from 2000 to 2008 A period of less easy and then relatively tight policy from 2009 to early-2014 A period of extremely easy policy from 2015 until today. The first phase noted above closely resembles the experience of Canada: policymakers in both countries simply kept interest rates too low during the last global economic expansion. In the second phase, the stance of monetary policy in Sweden became progressively less easy: the Taylor rule collapsed in 2009/2010, and trended lower again during the euro area sovereign debt crisis as well as its aftermath. In fact, Chart I-2 suggests that Sweden’s monetary policy stance was outrightly tight from 2012-2014, and in early-2014 the Taylor rule recommended negative policy rates while the actual policy rate was above 1%. In the third phase, the Riksbank appears to have overcompensated for the second phase of relatively less easy and eventually tight monetary policy. The Riksbank pushed policy rates into negative territory in late-2014, as had been recommended by the Taylor rule a year before, at a time when the rule was rising sharply. Roughly 2/3rds of the rise in the rule from early-2014 to late-2018 occurred due to the significant rise in Swedish inflation, with the rest due to a rise in Sweden’s output gap – which turned positive in late-2016 according to the OECD (Chart I-3). It is this third phase, featuring a massive and glaring gap between Swedish policy rates and a monetary policy rule that correctly recommended easy policy from 2010 – 2014, that has attracted global investor attention over the past few years. But Chart I-4 presents Sweden’s Taylor rule gap alongside its private sector debt-to-GDP ratio, and highlights that over 80% of the rise in the latter since 2000 actually occurred in the first phase described above – a period of persistently easy monetary policy as defined by our Taylor rule approach. The behavior of Sweden’s private sector debt-to-GDP ratio in the second and third phases also seems to validate our approach, as gearing essentially stopped during the second phase and restarted in the third phase. Chart I-3Since 2014, Sweden’s Rising Taylor Rule Has Been Driven Mostly By Inflation Since 2014, Sweden's Rising Taylor Rule Has Been Driven Mostly By Inflation Since 2014, Sweden's Rising Taylor Rule Has Been Driven Mostly By Inflation Chart I-4Sweden’s Monetary Policy Phases Explain Its Private Sector Leveraging Sweden's Monetary Policy Phases Explain Its Private Sector Leveraging Sweden's Monetary Policy Phases Explain Its Private Sector Leveraging The Riksbank: “Talk To Us About Inflation, Not Debt” Chart I-5During Phase 2, Households Clearly Took Advantage Of Low Mortgage Rates During Phase 2, Households Clearly Took Advantage Of Low Mortgage Rates During Phase 2, Households Clearly Took Advantage Of Low Mortgage Rates It is crucial to understand the motivations of Sweden’s central bank during each of these phases in order to be able to forecast the likelihood of a return to negative interest rates this year, as well as the Riksbank’s likely policy response once the COVID-19 pandemic subsides. In the first monetary policy phase that we have described, Sweden was not the only country to maintain persistently easy monetary policy. Given the relative scarcity of private sector deleveraging events in the post-war era, most policy makers, academic economists, and market participants were regrettably unconcerned about rising private sector indebtedness during this period, and only came to understand the consequences during the crisis and its aftermath. Most advanced economies leveraged during the first of Sweden’s monetary policy phases, and Sweden really only stands out as a major outlier from 2007 – 2009 when nearly 60% of the country’s total 2000-2019 private sector leveraging occurred (most of which, in turn, occurred before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008). In essence, by the time that Swedish policymakers were given a vivid and painful demonstration of the dangers of elevated private sector debt, it was too late to prevent most of the increase in debt-to-GDP that is facing the country today. In the second phase of Sweden's modern monetary policy, our Taylor rule framework highlights that the Riksbank largely acted as appropriate. One complication, however, is the difference in the leverage trend between Sweden's nonfinancial corporate and household sectors. Chart I-5 clearly highlights that Sweden's household sector took advantage of low interest rates during the country’s second monetary policy phase. Household sector leveraging began to rise again starting in late-2011, whereas it was completely absent for the corporate sector during the period. A crucial reason why the Riksbank ignored this renewed household sector leveraging is also part of the reason that it has maintained extremely low policy rates in the third phase noted above. The Riksbank’s monetary policy strategy, which is published in every monetary policy report, includes the following: “According to the Sveriges Riksbank Act, the Riksbank’s tasks also include promoting a safe and efficient payment system. Risks linked to developments in the financial markets are taken into account in the monetary decisions. With regard to preventing an unbalanced development of asset prices and indebtedness however, well-functioning regulation and effective supervision play a central role. Monetary policy only acts as a compliment to these.” In other words, the Riksbank has been very clear that preventing excessive leveraging is not its responsibility, and that the job ultimately falls to the Swedish government. But if the Taylor rule was recommending meaningfully higher interest rates during phase 3, then why did the Riksbank continue to lower interest rates into negative territory until last year? In our view, their behavior can be explained by the confluence of three factors: 1. Sweden’s deflation scare in 2014: Sweden’s underlying inflation rate had been trending lower for four years by the time that it dipped briefly into negative territory in March 2014. By this point, the Riksbank appears to have become increasingly concerned about inflation expectations rather than the trend in actual inflation. Chart I-6 presents Sweden’s underlying inflation rate and an adaptive-expectations based estimate of inflation expectations alongside the repo rate, and shows that inflection points in the repo rate match inflection points in expectations. Specifically, the repo rate continued to fall until inflation expectations stabilized in early-2016, and the Riksbank did not raise the repo rate until expectations crossed above 1.5%, a level that was reasonably close to the central bank’s 2% target. Chart I-6During Phase 3, The Riksbank Focused On Low Inflation Expectations During Phase 3, The Riksbank Focused On Low Inflation Expectations During Phase 3, The Riksbank Focused On Low Inflation Expectations 2. Sweden’s high trade sensitivity: Chart I-7 highlights that Sweden’s economy, like Canada and other Scandinavian countries, is highly exposed to exports to top trading partners. The euro area accounts for a large portion of Sweden’s exports, and Chart I-8 highlights that nominal euro area imports from Sweden remained very weak from 2012-2016. In addition, Sweden’s import sensitivity is also very high, with total imports of goods and services accounting for over 40% of Sweden’s GDP. By our calculations, roughly 2/3rds of Swedish imports are for domestic consumption,2 and Chart I-9 highlights how closely (inversely) correlated imported consumer and capital goods prices are to Sweden’s trade-weighted currency index. By pushing the repo rate into negative territory, the Riksbank reinforced rising inflation expectations by supporting exports and importing inflation from its trading partners via a weaker krona. Chart I-7Sweden, Like Other Small DM Countries, Are Highly Exposed To Trade Sweden, Like Other Small DM Countries, Are Highly Exposed To Trade Sweden, Like Other Small DM Countries, Are Highly Exposed To Trade Chart I-8Euro Area Demand For Swedish Goods Remained Weak For Several Years Euro Area Demand For Swedish Goods Remained Weak For Several Years Euro Area Demand For Swedish Goods Remained Weak For Several Years Chart I-9To 'Import' Inflation, The Riksbank Had To Weaken The Krona To 'Import' Inflation, The Riksbank Had To Weaken The Krona To 'Import' Inflation, The Riksbank Had To Weaken The Krona 3. The euro area’s persistently weak inflation and extremely easy monetary policy: While this is related to Sweden's overall trade sensitivity, the fact that the euro area had to combat persistently weak inflation with negative interest rates and asset purchases from late-2014 to late-2018 has had a particularly strong impact on Riksbank policy given the latter’s goal of boosting Swedish inflation via higher import prices. Chart I-10 highlights the strong link between the SEK-EUR exchange rate and the real interest rate differential between the two countries, and in particular shows that the Riksbank had to lower the differential into negative territory in order to bring the krona below “normal” levels (defined here as the average of the past global economic expansion). When faced with a real euro area policy rate of roughly -1.5% during the period (Chart I-11), the only way to achieve a negative real rate differential was to maintain the repo rate at an extremely low level as Swedish inflation rose. Chart I-10To Weaken The ##br##Krona... To Weaken The Krona... To Weaken The Krona... Chart I-11…Deeply Negative Real Policy Rates Were Required ...Deeply Negative Real Policy Rates Were Required ...Deeply Negative Real Policy Rates Were Required Where Next For The Repo Rate? In February 2019 the Riksbank was forecasting that the repo rate would return into positive territory by the end of this year, and would rise as high as 80 basis points by mid-2022. They downgraded this assessment in April, and again in October, highlighting that they expected a 0% repo rate for essentially the entire three-year forecast period. In other words, the Riksbank had been moving in a dovish direction even before the COVID-19 pandemic began. Prior to the outbreak, we would have been inclined to argue that the Riksbank’s forecast of a 0% repo rate beyond 2020 was suspect, given the budding recovery in global growth. Chart I-12 highlights that the global PMI had been improving for several months prior to the outbreak, and the Swedish PMI and consumer confidence index had recently rebounded sharply. A negative repo rate was essential to “import” inflation. But, given the extent of the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, especially in Europe, and our description of the Riksbank mandate and reaction function, the odds appear to be high that the repo rate will move back into negative territory at some point this year. Besides the very negative direct impact to global trade from the pandemic, Chart I-13 highlights that Swedish inflation is now falling, and that our measure of inflation expectations has now peaked. Chart I-12Swedish Economic Momentum Was Building Prior To The Pandemic... Swedish Economic Momentum Was Building Prior To The Pandemic... Swedish Economic Momentum Was Building Prior To The Pandemic... Char I-13...But Inflation Is Falling And The Unemployment Rate Is Rising ...But Inflation Is Falling And The Unemployment Rate Is Rising ...But Inflation Is Falling And The Unemployment Rate Is Rising In addition, the Swedish unemployment rate has been trending higher since early-2018 (Chart I-13, second panel), in response to several factors: a shock to household wealth in late-2015/early-2016 due to sharply falling equity prices, a meaningful decline in house prices driven by newly introduced macroprudential policies, and a sharp albeit seemingly one-off decline in the contribution to Swedish economic growth from government expenditure (Chart I-14). These trends would have likely reversed at some point this year given the building economic momentum that was evident in January and early-February, but it is now clear that the pandemic will more than offset the budding improvement in economic activity. Chart I-14Swedish Policymakers Will Have To Reverse The Factors That Caused The Pre-Pandemic Slowdow Swedish Policymakers Will Have To Reverse The Factors That Caused The Pre-Pandemic Slowdow Swedish Policymakers Will Have To Reverse The Factors That Caused The Pre-Pandemic Slowdow Over the past week the Riksbank has announced two policies: it will provide cheap loans to the country’s banks (500 billion SEK) to bolster credit supply to Swedish small & medium-sized enterprises, and it will increase its asset purchase program by 300 billion SEK. The Riksbank is clearly reluctant to cut the repo rate after having just existed its negative interest rate position last year, and has argued that strong liquidity support and stepped up asset purchases are more likely to be effective measures in the current environment. However, Charts I-10 & I-11 underscored the link between real interest rate differentials and the currency, and the Riksbank will risk having the krona appreciate versus the euro and other currencies if inflation continues to fall and the policy rate is kept unchanged. Chart I-15 shows that market participants have already begun to price in cuts to the repo rate, and our sense is that the Riksbank will be forced to act in a way that is consistent with the market’s view. Chart I-15The Market Expects The Riksbank To Return To Negative Interest Rates. We Agree. The Market Expects The Riksbank To Return To Negative Interest Rates. We Agree. The Market Expects The Riksbank To Return To Negative Interest Rates. We Agree. Investment Conclusions Over a cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) time horizon, the Swedish krona is the asset with the clearest link to our discussion of Riksbank policy, and investors should recognize that the krona call is now a binary one based on the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is one of the cheapest currencies in the G10 space, but foreign exchange markets have recently ignored fundamentals such as interest rate differentials and valuation. This is particularly true in the face of a spike in US dollar cross-currency basis swaps, which have started to send the dollar higher even against the safe haven currencies. In such an a environment, selling pressure could continue to push SEK lower, especially if the Riksbank is pushed to reduce the repo rate sooner rather than later. The SEK is one of the most procyclical currencies in the FX space, suggesting that investors should stand aside until markets stabilize (Chart I-16). Right now, the Swedish krona is the clearest play on Riksbank policy. As for the EUR/SEK cross, any renewed ECB stimulus suggests that Sweden will act accordingly to prevent the SEK from appreciating too far, too fast. EUR/SEK will top out after global growth is in an eventual upswing, and the Riskbank has eased policy further. Over the medium-term time horizon, one implication of a return to negative interest rates is that Swedish house price appreciation is likely to trend higher once the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic ends. House prices will likely decelerate in the near term given the shock to household wealth from falling equity prices, but we showed in Chart I-5 that Sweden’s household sector ultimately took advantage of low interest rates during Sweden’s second monetary policy phase. We expect a similar dynamic to unfold beyond the coming 6-9 months, and Chart I-17 highlights that overweighting Swedish consumer durable and apparel stocks within the overall Swedish equity market is likely the best way to eventually play a resumption of household leveraging and rising house prices. Chart I-16Avoid Krona Exposure ##br##For Now Avoid Krona Exposure For Now Avoid Krona Exposure For Now Chart I-17Swedish Consumer Durables & Apparel Stocks Linked To Domestic, Not Global, Demand Swedish Consumer Durables & Apparel Stocks Linked To Domestic, Not Global, Demand Swedish Consumer Durables & Apparel Stocks Linked To Domestic, Not Global, Demand With the exception of a selloff in 2013, the relative performance of the industry group has closely correlated with house price appreciation, and is now deeply oversold. The companies included the industry group earn a significant portion of their revenue from global sales, but the close correlation of relative performance with Swedish house prices and limited correlation with the global PMI suggests that domestic economic performance matter in driving returns for these stocks (Chart I-17, bottom panel). We are not yet prepared to recommend a long relative position favoring this industry group, but we are likely to view signs of policy traction and a relative performance breakout as a good entry point. Finally, the key long-term implication of our research is that Sweden will at some point likely face a period of stagnation stemming from the extraordinary rise in private sector debt that has built up over the past two decades. While regulators had begun to combat excessive debt with macroprudential measures, further measures to restrict household sector debt are extremely unlikely to occur until after another substantial reacceleration in Swedish house prices and another nontrivial rise in household sector leverage. This will be cyclically positive for Sweden coming out of the pandemic, but will ultimately make Sweden’s underlying debt problem meaningfully worse. Macroprudential control of rising nonfinancial corporate debt has not and is not likely to occur, and no regulatory control measure will be able to significantly ease the existing debt burden facing the private sector. Chart I-18 highlights that while Sweden’s private sector debt service ratio (DSR) is not the highest in the world, is it extremely elevated compared to other important DM countries such as the US, UK, Japan, and core euro area. Several other countries with higher private sector DSRs, such as Canada and Hong Kong, are also at serious risk of long-term stagnation. Chart I-18Swedish Domestic Economic Stagnation Is A 'When', Not An 'If' Swedish Domestic Economic Stagnation Is A 'When', Not An 'If' Swedish Domestic Economic Stagnation Is A 'When', Not An 'If' We have not yet identified a specific list of assets that will be negatively impacted by Swedish domestic economic stagnation over the longer term. Our European Investment Strategy service recently argued that Swedish stocks are attractive over the very long term versus Swedish bonds, based on valuations and the fact that the Swedish equity market as a whole is heavily driven by the global business cycle. We plan on revisiting the question of which equity sectors are most vulnerable to domestic stagnation in a future report, as the onset of stagnation draws nearer. As we noted in our report on Canada,3 it is difficult to identify precisely when Sweden’s high debt load will meaningfully and sustainably impact Swedish economic activity and related equity sectors. The acute shock to global activity from the COVID-19 pandemic is an obvious potential trigger, but the fact that policymakers around the world are responding forcefully to the pandemic suggests that this is not the end of Sweden’s debt supercycle. In this regard, the prospect of globally co-ordinated fiscal spending is especially significant. Our best guess is that Sweden’s true reckoning will come once US and global activity contracts for conventional reasons, instigated by tight monetary policy to control rising and above-target inflation. This may mean that Sweden will avoid a balance sheet recession for some time, but investors exposed to domestically-linked Swedish financial assets should take heed that the eventual consequences of such an event are likely to grow in magnitude the longer it takes to arrive. In short, beyond the acute nearer-term impact of the pandemic, Sweden is likely to experience short-term gain for long-term pain. The short- to medium-term focus of investors should be on the former, but with full recognition that the latter will eventually occur. Timing the transition between these two states will be of crucial importance for investors exposed to the domestic Swedish economy over the coming few years. Stay tuned!   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2 We assume that all services imports are consumed domestically. Among goods exports, we assume domestic consumption of all imports of food & live animals, beverages & tobacco, mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials, miscellaneous manufactured articles, road vehicles, and other goods. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story," dated July 14, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Policy Responses: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a full-blown global crisis and recession. Governments and central bankers worldwide are now responding with aggressive monetary easing and fiscal stimulus. Markets will not respond positively to such stimulus, however, until there is some visibility on the true depth, and duration, of the economic downturn. Fixed Income Strategy: With a global recession now a certainty, bond yields will remain under downward pressure and credit spreads should widen further. Given how far yields have already fallen, we recommend emphasizing country and credit allocation in global bond portfolios, while keeping overall duration exposure around benchmark levels. Model Portfolio Changes: Following up on our tactical changes last week, we continue to recommend overweighting government debt versus spread product. Specifically, overweighting US & Canadian government bonds versus Japan and core Europe, and underweighting US high-yield and all euro area and EM credit. Feature In stunning fashion, the sudden stop in the global economy due to the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a rapid return to crisis-era monetary and fiscal policies. The battle has now shifted to trying to fill the massive hole in global private sector demand left by efforts to contain the spread of the virus. It is unlikely that lower interest rates and more quantitative easing can mitigate the negative growth effects from travel bans, closing of bars and restaurants, and full scale lockdowns of cities. Fiscal policy, combined with efforts to boost market liquidity and ease the coming collapse of cash flows for the majority of global businesses, are the only plausible options remaining. It is unlikely that lower interest rates and more quantitative easing can mitigate the negative growth effects from travel bans, closing of bars and restaurants, and full scale lockdowns of cities. While the speed of these dramatic policy moves is unprecedented, the reason for them is obvious. Plunging equities and surging corporate bond credit spreads are signaling a global recession, but one of uncertain depth and duration given the uncertainties surrounding the spread of COVID-19 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCan Crisis-Era Monetary Policies Be Effective During A Pandemic? Can Crisis-Era Monetary Policies Be Effective During A Pandemic? Can Crisis-Era Monetary Policies Be Effective During A Pandemic? Chart 2Risk Assets Will Not Bottom Until New COVID-19 Cases Ex-China Peak Risk Assets Will Not Bottom Until New COVID-19 Cases Ex-China Peak Risk Assets Will Not Bottom Until New COVID-19 Cases Ex-China Peak The ability for policymakers to calibrate stimulus measures is pure guesswork at this point. The same thing goes for investors who see zero visibility on global growth, with the full extent of the virus yet to be felt in large economies like the United States and Germany – even as new cases in China, where the epidemic began, approach zero. The response from central bankers has been swift and bold – rapid rate cuts, increased liquidity programs for bank funding and increased asset purchases. The fact that global financial markets have remained volatile, even after what is a clear coordinated effort from policymakers, highlights how the unique threats to growth from the COVID-19 pandemic may be beyond fighting with traditional demand-side stimulus measures. We continue to recommend a cautious near-term investment stance, particular with regards to corporate bond exposure, until there is clear evidence that the growth rate of new COVID-19 cases outside China has peaked (Chart 2). Policymakers Throw The Kitchen Sink At The Problem The market moves and policy announcements have come fast and furious this past week, from virtually all major economies. We summarize some of the moves below: United States The Fed cut rates by -100bps in a Sunday night emergency move, taking the funds rate back to the effective lower bound of 0% - 0.25%. Importantly, Fed Chair Powell made it clear at his press conference that negative rates are not on the table, suggesting that we may have seen the last of the rate cuts for this cycle. A new round of quantitative easing (QE) was also announced, with purchases of $500 billion of Treasury securities and $200 billion of agency MBS that will occur in the “coming months”; Powell hinted that those amounts could be increased, if necessary (Chart 3). The MBS purchases are a clear effort to help bring down mortgage rates, which have not declined anywhere near as rapidly as US Treasury yields during the market rout (bottom panel). The Fed also cut the discount window rate – the rate at which banks can borrow from the Fed for periods of up to 90 days – by -150bps, bringing it down to 0.25%. The Fed said it is “encouraging banks to use their capital and liquidity buffers” – essentially telling banks to hold less cash for regulatory purposes. The Fed also reduced the rate on its US dollar swap lines with other central banks. The new rate is OIS +25bps. Coming on top of the massive increase in existing repo lines last week, the Fed is attempting to ensure that banks, both in the US and globally, that need USD funding have more liquidity available to support lending. Already, there are signs of worsening liquidity in the bank funding markets, like widening FRA-OIS spreads, but also evidence of illiquidity in financial markets like wide bid-ask spreads on longer-maturity US Treasuries and the growing basis between high-yield bonds and equivalent credit default swaps (Chart 4). Chart 3A Return To Fed QE A Return To Fed QE A Return To Fed QE Chart 4Market Liquidity Issues Forced The Fed's Hand Market Liquidity Issues Forced The Fed's Hand Market Liquidity Issues Forced The Fed's Hand Turning to fiscal policy, the full response of the Trump administration is still being formed, but a major $850bn spending package has been proposed that would provide tax relief for American households and businesses while also including a $50bn bailout of the US airline industry. This comes on top of previously announced plans to offer free testing for the virus, paid sick leave, business tax credits and a temporary suspension of student loan interest payments. Chart 5The ECB Has Limited Policy Options The ECB Has Limited Policy Options The ECB Has Limited Policy Options Euro Area The European Central Bank (ECB) unexpectedly made no changes to policy interest rates last week. It opted instead to increase asset purchases by €120bn until the end of 2020 (both for government bonds and investment grade corporates), while introducing more long-term refinancing operations (LTROs) to “provide a bridge” to the targeted LTRO (TLTRO-3) that is set to begin in June. The terms of TLTRO-3 were improved, as well; banks that accessed the liquidity to maintain existing lending could do so at a rate up to -25bps below the current ECB deposit rate of -0.5%, for up to 50% of the existing stock of bank loans. The ECB obviously had to do something, given the coordinated nature of the global monetary policy response to COVID-19. Yet the decisions taken show that the ECB is much more limited in its ability to ease policy further, with interest rates already negative, asset purchases approaching self-imposed country limits and, most worryingly, inflation expectations falling to fresh lows (Chart 5). The bigger responses to date have come on the fiscal front, with stimulus packages proposed by France (€45bn), Italy (€25bn), Spain (€3bn) and the European Commission (€37bn). The biggest news, however, came from Germany which has offered affected businesses tax breaks and cheap loans through the state development bank, KfW – the latter with an planned upper limit of €550bn (and with the German government assuming a greater share of risk on those new KfW loans). The German government has also vaguely promised to temporarily suspend its so-called “debt brake” to allow deficit financing of virus-related stimulus programs, if necessary. Other Countries The Bank of England cut interest rates by -50bps last week, while also lowering capital requirements for UK banks by allowing use of counter-cyclical buffers for lending. On the fiscal side, a £30bn package was introduced last week that included a tax cut for retailers, cash grants to small business, sick pay for those with COVID-19 and extended unemployment benefits. The Bank of Japan held an emergency meeting this past Sunday night, announcing no changes in policy rates but doubling the size of its ETF purchase program to $56 billion a year to $112 billion, while also increasing purchases of corporate bonds and commercial paper. The central bank also announced a new program of 0% interest loans to increase lending to businesses hurt by the virus. The Bank of Canada delivered an emergency -50bps cut in its policy rate last Friday, coming soon after the -50bp reduction from the previous week. The central bank also introduced operations to boost the liquidity of Canadian financial markets. The Canadian government also announced a fiscal package of up to C$20bn, including increased money for the state business funding agencies. The Reserve Bank of Australia did not cut its Cash Rate last week, which was already at a record-low 0.5%. It did, however, signal that it would begin a quantitative easing program for the first time, and introduce Fed-like repo operations, to provide more liquidity to the economy and local financial markets. The Australian government has also announced A$17bn of fiscal stimulus. Fiscal packages have also been introduced in New Zealand (where the Reserve Bank of New Zealand just cut its policy rate by -75bps), Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, and South Korea. To date, China has leaned more on monetary and liquidity measures – lowering interest rates and cutting reserve requirements – rather than a big fiscal stimulus package. Will all these policy measures be enough to offset the hit to global growth from COVID-19 and help stabilize financial markets? It is certainly a good start, particularly in countries with low government and deficit levels that have the fiscal space for even more stimulus, like Germany, Australia and Canada (Chart 6). Given these competing forces of global recession and monetary policy exhaustion on one side, but with increasingly more expansive fiscal policy on the other, we recommend a neutral (at benchmark) stance on overall global duration exposure on both a tactical and strategic basis. The ability to calibrate the necessary policy response is impossible to assess without knowing the full impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy – including the size of related job losses and corporate defaults/bankruptcies. Policymakers are likely to listen to the combined message of financial markets – equity prices, credit spreads and government bond yields. The low level of yields and flat yield curves, despite near-0% policy rates across the developed world (Chart 7), suggests that investors see monetary policy as “tapped out”, leaving fiscal stimulus as the only way to fight the economic war against COVID-19. Chart 6At Global ZIRP, The Policy Focus Shifts To Fiscal At Global ZIRP, The Policy Focus Shifts To Fiscal At Global ZIRP, The Policy Focus Shifts To Fiscal Chart 7Are Bond Yields Discounting A Global Liquidity Trap? Are Bond Yields Discounting A Global Liquidity Trap? Are Bond Yields Discounting A Global Liquidity Trap? Given these competing forces of global recession and monetary policy exhaustion on one side, but with increasingly more expansive fiscal policy on the other, we recommend a neutral (at benchmark) stance on overall global duration exposure on both a tactical and strategic basis. Bottom Line: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a full-blown global crisis and recession. Governments and central bankers worldwide are now responding with aggressive monetary easing and fiscal stimulus. Markets will not respond positively to such stimulus, however, until there is some visibility on the true depth, and duration, of the economic downturn. Corporate Bonds In The US & Europe – Stay Tactically Defensive Chart 8This Crisis Is Different Than 2008 This Crisis Is Different Than 2008 This Crisis Is Different Than 2008 The COVID-19 global market rout has generated levels of market volatility not seen since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The US VIX index of option-implied equity volatility spiked to a high of 84, while the equivalent German VDAX measure reached a shocking high of 93. Equity valuations in both the US and Europe remain much higher on a forward price/earnings ratio basis compared to the troughs seen in 2008, even after the COVID-19 bear market. Yet even though volatility has returned to crisis-era extremes, and corporate credit has sold off hard in both the US and Europe, credit spreads remain well below the 2008 highs (Chart 8). Nonetheless, the credit selloff seen over the past few weeks has still been intense. Both investment grade and high-yield spreads have blown out, and across all credit tiers in both the US (Chart 9) and euro area (Chart 10). Even the highest-rated segments of the corporate bond universe have seen spreads explode, with AAA-rated investment grade spreads having doubled in both the US and Europe. Chart 9Broad-Based Spread Widening For Both Investment Grade... Broad-Based Spread Widening For Both Investment Grade... Broad-Based Spread Widening For Both Investment Grade... Chart 10...And High-Yield ...And High-Yield ...And High-Yield With the COVID-19 pandemic tipping the global economy into recession, it is not clear that the spread widening seen to date has been enough to compensate for the typical surge in downgrades and defaults seen during recessions – even though spreads do look wide on a duration-adjusted basis. With the COVID-19 pandemic tipping the global economy into recession, it is not clear that the spread widening seen to date has been enough to compensate for the typical surge in downgrades and defaults seen during recessions – even though spreads do look wide on a duration-adjusted basis.  One of our favorite metrics to value corporate bonds is to look at option-adjusted spreads, adjusted for interest rate duration risk. We call this the 12-month breakeven spread, as it measures the amount of spread widening over one year that would leave corporate bond returns equal to those of duration-matched US Treasuries. We then look at the percentile rankings of those breakeven spreads versus their history as one indicator of corporate bond value. Chart 11US Corporates Look Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis US Corporates Look Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis US Corporates Look Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis For the US, the 12-month breakeven spreads for the overall Bloomberg Barclays investment grade and high-yield indices are in the 82nd and 97th percentiles, respectively (Chart 11). This suggests that the latest credit selloff has made corporate debt quite cheap, although only looking through the prism of spread risk rather than potential default losses. Another of our preferred valuation metrics for high-yield debt is the duration-adjusted spread, or the high-yield index option-adjusted spread minus default losses. We then look at that default-adjusted spread versus its long-run average (+250bps) as a measure of high-yield value. To assess the current level of spreads, we use a one-year ahead forecast of the expected default rate using our own macro model. Over the past 12 months, the high-yield default rate was 4.5% and our macro model is currently calling for a rise to 6.2%. That estimate, however, does not yet include the certain hit to corporate profits from the COVID-19 recession. By way of comparison, the default rate peaked at 11.2% during the 2001/02 default cycle and at 14.6% during the 2008 financial crisis. In Chart 12, we show the historical default rate, our macro model for the default rate, and the history of the default-adjusted spread. We also show what the default-adjusted spread would look like in four different scenarios for the default rate over the next 12 months: 6%, 9%, 11% and 15%. The placement of these numbers in the bottom panel of Chart 12 indicates where the Default-Adjusted Spread will be if each scenario is realized. Chart 12US High-Yield Is Not Cheap On A Default-Adjusted Basis US High-Yield Is Not Cheap On A Default-Adjusted Basis US High-Yield Is Not Cheap On A Default-Adjusted Basis Right now, our expectation is that there will be a virus driven US recession, but it will be shorter in magnitude than past recessions; this suggests a peak default rate closer to 9%. Such a scenario would still be consistent with a positive default-adjusted spread and likely positive excess returns for US high-yield relative to US Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. However, if a default rate similar to that seen during past recessions (11% or 15%) is realized, that would lead to a negative default-adjusted spread. Adding up both pieces of our valuation framework suggests that, while US high-yield spreads offer value on a duration-adjusted basis, spreads do not compensate enough for potential default losses if the US recession lasts longer than we expect. Thus, we recommend a tactical underweight position in US high-yield until we see better visibility on the severity, and duration, of the US recession. Adding up both pieces of our valuation framework suggests that, while US high-yield spreads offer value on a duration-adjusted basis, spreads do not compensate enough for potential default losses if the US recession lasts longer than we expect.  As for euro area corporates, spreads for both investment grade and high-yield do look relatively wide on a breakeven spread basis, although less so than US credit (Chart 13). However, with the World Health Organization declaring Europe as the new epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, the harsh containment measures seen in Italy, Germany, France and elsewhere – coming from a starting point of weak overall economic growth – suggest that euro area spreads need to be wider to fully reflect downgrade and default risks. Chart 13Euro Area Corporates Look A Bit Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis Euro Area Corporates Look A Bit Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis Euro Area Corporates Look A Bit Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis We recommend a tactical underweight allocation to both euro area corporate debt and Italian sovereign debt, as spreads have room to reprice wider to reflect a deeper recession (Chart 14). Chart 14Stay Underweight Euro Area Spread Product Stay Underweight Euro Area Spread Product Stay Underweight Euro Area Spread Product Bottom Line: Corporate bond spreads on both sides of the Atlantic discount a sharp economic slowdown, but the odds of a deeper recession – and more spread widening - are greater in Europe relative to the US. A Quick Note On Recent Changes To Our Model Bond Portfolio In last week’s report, we made several adjustments to our model bond portfolio recommended allocations on a tactical (0-6 months) basis.1 Specifically, we downgraded our overall recommended exposure to global spread product to underweight, while increasing the overall allocation to government debt to overweight. The specific changes made to the model bond portfolio are presented in tables on pages 14 & 15. Within the country allocation of the government bond side of the portfolio, we upgraded US and Canada (markets more sensitive to changes in global bond yields, and with central banks that still had room to ease policy) to overweight, while downgrading core Europe to underweight and Japan to maximum underweight (both markets less sensitive to global yields and with no room to cut rates). On the credit side of the portfolio, we downgraded US high-yield to underweight (with a 0% allocation to Caa-rated debt), while also downgrading euro area investment grade and high-yield debt to underweight. We also lowered allocations to emerging market USD denominated debt, both sovereign and corporate, to underweight. We left the allocation to US investment grade debt at neutral, as the other reductions left our overall spread product allocation at the desired level (35% versus the 43% spread product weighting in our custom benchmark portfolio index). In terms of the specific weightings, the portfolio is now +11% overweight US fixed income versus the benchmark, coming most through US Treasury exposure. The portfolio is now -7% underweight euro area versus the benchmark, equally thorough government bond and corporate debt exposure. The portfolio is now also has a -7% weight in Japan versus the benchmark, entirely from government bonds. Note that these weightings represent a tactical allocation only, as we are recommending a defensive stance on spread product exposure given the near-term uncertainties over COVID-19 and global growth. On a strategic (6-12 months) horizon, however, we are neutral overall spread product exposure versus government bonds. Corporate bond spreads already discount a sharp economic slowdown and some increase in defaults. However, the rapid shift to aggressive monetary and fiscal easing by global policymakers to combat the virus will likely limit the duration and, potentially, the severity of the global slowdown currently discounted in wide credit spreads.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Train Is Empty", dated March 10, 2020, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Panicked Policymakers Move To A Wartime Footing Panicked Policymakers Move To A Wartime Footing Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns