Economy

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, in lieu of our regular report, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan discusses the global fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and provides some perspective on whether the response will be enough to prevent an "L-shaped" economic outcome. I hope you find the report insightful. Last Friday, I participated in a webcast with my fellow BCA Strategists Caroline Miller and Arthur Budaghyan where we discussed the outlook for developed and emerging market equities over the immediate (0-3 month) and cyclical (12 month) horizon. You can access a replay of the webcast here. Please note we will be sending out our regular weekly report next week. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. Feature The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart 1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart 1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Chart 1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures Instead, Chart 2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.1 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart 2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures Analysis by Bruegel, provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table 1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table 1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Table 1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries Chart 3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.2Chart 3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart 3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts 1 – 3 and Table 1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart 4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart 4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart 4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart 5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart 5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Chart 5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables 2 and 3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables 2 and 3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table 2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Table 2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions Table 3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound Second, Table 3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box 1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box 1The 'Bucket' Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts 1 - 3 on pages 3-5. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. Chart 6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart 6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart 6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table 4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance.   Table 4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments.   Firms: On April 16 the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured.   Table 5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table 5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response.  The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30 when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent.   Chart 7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart 7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.3 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart 8 reproduces Chart 3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart 8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. Chart 8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart 8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table 6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.4 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table 6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31 or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table 6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart 9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart 9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart 10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart 10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart 11). Chart 11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart 12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Third, Chart 13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. Chart 12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Chart 13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged   So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 2 Please note that Chart 3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 3 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Highlights Even as a net oil importer, China loses more than it gains when oil prices collapse. An oil price collapse generates a formidable deflationary force, which will further depress China’s industrial pricing power and profit growth in Q2. There are early signs that demand in some sectors is gaining traction in the first three weeks of April. A full removal of travel restrictions in late May in China should help speed up the return of domestic business activities. We maintain our view that China’s economic recovery will pick up momentum in H2, underpinning our cyclical overweight stance on Chinese risk assets. Feature The nosedive in oil futures last week was a rude awakening of the enormous and unpredictable impact the pandemic has on the global economy and financial markets. WTI futures for May 2020 delivery fell to -$40.40 per barrel on April 20, an unprecedented event.  The collapse in oil prices since March will generate substantial deflationary headwinds to China’s economy in the months ahead (Chart 1). Producer prices are already in contraction. An imported deflation from low oil prices will weaken industrial pricing power even more, pushing up real rates. China’s industrial profit growth also moves in lockstep with producer prices. A deepening in PPI contraction means industrial profit growth will remain underwater, underscoring our view that the near-term outlook for Chinese stocks is yet to turn sanguine (Chart 2). Chart 1Falling Oil Prices: A Substantial Deflationary Force Chart 2Deflation Weakens Industrial Profit Growth   Oil prices will likely rebound in Q3 when the global economy re-opens, oil supply cuts take hold and the US dollar peaks. Our Commodity and Energy strategist estimates that WTI spot prices will reach $38/barrel by end-2020.1 A modest recovery in oil prices alone will not be enough to lift Chinese producer prices back to positive. The substantial reflationary efforts from China’s policymakers since Q1 should start to have an impact on the real economy in H2. The exponential credit growth should effectively prop up investment and consumption growth, and reduce inventory overhang in the industrial sector. We expect industrial producer prices and profits to turn slightly positive in Q3/Q4, underpinning our constructive view on Chinese stocks in the next 6- to 12-months. Oil Price Collapse: A Bane, Not A Boon China, as a net oil importer, stands to lose more than gain in an oil price war. This is contrary to commonly held economic theory that net oil importing countries are winners from cheaper oil. In theory falling oil prices reduces import prices, improves net oil importers’ term of trade, and in turn contributes positively to their GDP growth. In reality oil prices rarely fall in isolation. A precipitous fall in oil prices is almost always triggered by a sharp decline in global demand, accompanied with a spike in the US dollar, and results in a turmoil in the global financial markets (Chart 3). Therefore, depending on where an economy is positioned in the global value chain, a net oil importer may lose even more than a net oil exporter when oil prices collapse. Chart 3Global Trade Remains Under Pressure Until Dollar Peaks Chart 4China Loses More From Falling Trade Than Gains From Falling Oil Prices At only 14% of world oil consumption, China’s demand for oil alone is not enough to support a price recovery. But as a global manufacturing powerhouse, the benefits China has gained from cheaper oil in the past cycles were often more than offset by the economic and financial shocks from an oil price collapse (Chart 4). The small positive contribution to China’s GDP growth via savings on oil import bills is further discounted by losses from China’s own oil and oil-product exports (Chart 4, middle panel). China’s oil and gas sector does not necessarily benefit from collapsing oil prices. The country’s domestic oil exploration becomes deeply unprofitable when international oil prices collapse. Falling domestic demand for finished oil products and rising competition in the industry when prices are low squeeze out any extra profits for oil refineries (Chart 5). Chart 5China’s Energy Sector Suffers Too In An Oil Bear Market Chart 6Energy Costs: A Small Part Of Chinese CPI Chart 7US Consumers Benefit Much More From An Oil Price Decline Than Chinese Consumers Furthermore, unlike the US, Chinese household consumption does not get a boost from cheaper oil. Food prices, rather than energy, drive the overall consumer price inflation in China (Chart 6). In addition, China’s domestic petrol market is heavily regulated and retail prices for energy are set by the Chinese government. China does not pass on the entire benefit of an energy price decline to its consumers, a rigid policy that has not been changed since 2016.2 As such, the current reduction in oil prices will not have the same “tax cut” benefit as it does for US consumers (Chart 7). Bottom Line: Low oil prices, accompanied by a strong dollar and depressed global trade, create a self-feeding deflationary feedback loop to China’s industrial sector, reducing the effects of the existing reflationary measures on its economy. Budding Signs Of Reflation A modest recovery in oil prices in Q3 will not be enough to return China's PPI to positive territory. Even when the global economy re-opens, the initial recovery in business activities and demand will likely be gradual, a situation China has experienced in the past two months (Chart 8). Thus, China’s domestic demand will bear most of the brunt to shore up inflation in produced goods, by propping up investment and consumption growth. We expect China’s substantial reflationary measures to start filtering into the real economy in H2. China’s industrial sector should get a boost from an acceleration in infrastructure investment and producer prices should turn moderately positive later in Q3 (Chart 9). Chart 8China’s Export Growth Set To Decline Further In Q2 Chart 9Huge Credit Wave Should Start Lifting Industrial Profits In H2 High-frequency data point to some early signs of a rebound in China’s domestic demand. The annual growth in the transaction volume of rebar steel rebounded from an 8% decline in March to 4% growth in the first three weeks in April.3 The contraction in passenger car sales also narrowed from -38% in March to -7.3% so far in April.4 China is ramping up its COVID-19 antibody testing to prevent a second-wave outbreak and is preparing for the National People’s Congress (NPC), which may take place in mid-May. Inter-provincial travel restrictions have limited the speed of recovery in business operations, but we expect such cautionary measures to be fully lifted in late May. The removal of logistic restrictions will help to accelerate a return to normal in both domestic production and demand. As we noted in our last week’s report,5 the April 17 Politburo meeting confirmed a policy shift to maximum reflation. President Xi’s new slogan, “The Six Stabilities and The Six Guarantees,” sets the tone that the government will increase investments to ensure that China’s post-pandemic economic growth is strong enough to stabilize employment. Bottom Line: Chinese business activities continue to inch up.  The recovery in domestic demand should pick up momentum in H2 to offset imported deflationary pressures on China’s industrial profits.  Investment Conclusions In the near term, a strong US dollar is a key risk to the recovery of China’s industrial profits.  The greenback not only generates downward pressure on oil prices and global trade, but also puts the RMB in a poor position of depreciating against the dollar but at the same time appreciating against China’s export competitors (Chart 10). All are creating headwinds to China’s economic recovery. We recommend that investors stay on the sidelines in the near term until the dollar peaks and oil prices rebound, probably in Q3.  However, on a cyclical time horizon, as the global economy re-opens and demands slowly recovers in H2, the flood of stimulus including China's own reflation efforts should help to restore investors’ risk appetite and lift the prices of risk assets. Although Chinese stocks have passively outperformed global stocks this year, the strong rebound in the SPX in recent weeks has made Chinese stocks slightly less overbought in relative terms (Chart 11). Chart 10A Tough Combination For The RMB Chart 11Chinese Stocks: Slightly Less Overbought In Past Weeks We expect China’s corporate profit growth to outpace global earnings growth this year, even as other economies re-open and start to recover. This warrants an overweight stance on Chinese stocks after near-term risks and market gyrations subside.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "USD Strength Restrains Commodity Recovery," dated April 23, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 2The floor for retail fuel prices is set at $40 a barrel to limit losses at China’s state-owned oil companies, which generally have average production costs in the range of $40-$50 per barrel. http://english.www.gov.cn/news/top_news/2016/01/13/content_281475271410529.htm 3Based on daily data from MySteel. 4Based on weekly data from China Passenger Car Association. 5Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Three Questions Following The Coronacrisis," dated April 23, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

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

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