Debt Supercycle

Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles China's Decade Of Troubles China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary Global Investors Still Wary Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing China's Growth Potential Slowing China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) Biden Confirmed As A China Hawk (GeoRisk Update) GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan – Province Of China Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan-Province of China: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Australia Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Making predictions about the economic and market outlook seems a futile exercise in the midst of such massive uncertainty. The deluge of articles about COVID-19 merely serves to highlight that nobody really knows how things will play out in the year ahead. Much depends on whether an effective vaccine or treatment becomes available within a reasonable timescale and that remains an open question. Social and economic disruption will continue to intensify until the spread of the virus starts to abate. One thing is certain. Economic activity around the world faces its biggest contraction in modern times. Declines in second quarter GDP will be mind-numbingly bad in a wide range of countries, especially those that have instituted lockdowns and the closure of non-essential businesses. According to the OECD, the median economy faces an initial output decline of around 25% as a result of shutdowns and restrictions.1 Chart 1A Meltdown In Economic Activity A Meltdown In Economic Activity A Meltdown In Economic Activity Estimates for the drop in US real GDP in the second quarter range as high as 50% at an annual rate. To put this into perspective, the peak-to-trough decline in US real GDP in the 2007-09 recession was a mere 4% over six quarters, and that felt catastrophic at the time. The New York Fed’s weekly economic index2 has already fallen to the lows of 2008 and worse is still to come (Chart 1). Could things be as bad as the 1930s Great Depression when US real GDP contracted by 25% over a three-year period? That would require an extreme apocalyptic view about the progression of the virus and does not bear thinking about. I am not that gloomy. Policymakers are acting aggressively to limit the economic damage. Central banks are flooding the system with liquidity and the cost of money is negligible. Meanwhile, fiscal caution has been thrown to the wind with massive government stimulus in many countries. While this will not prevent a deep recession, it will minimize the downside risks and support the eventual rebound. Markets are understandably in a deep funk because it is hard to price unknown risks. If this is no more than a two-quarter economic downturn followed by a sharp recovery, then a good buying opportunity in risk assets is in place given that monetary policy will stay hyper accommodative for a considerable time. If the downturn lingers much longer than that, then equities remain at risk. While loath to make a prediction, I am uncharacteristically tending to the more optimistic side. Let’s make the heroic assumption that we are not in an end of days scenario and that this crisis will pass at some point in the next year- hopefully sooner than later. What are some of the longer-run implications? A few come to mind. The backlash against globalization will gather impetus. Public sector debt will rise to unimaginable peacetime levels. Meanwhile, the crisis puts the final nail in the coffin of the private sector Debt Supercycle. Monetary policy will err on the side of ease for a very long time. The way that companies and other institutions have been forced to adapt to the crisis could trigger lasting changes in how they operate. Globalization In Full Retreat Chart 2A Retreat From Globalization A Retreat From Globalization A Retreat From Globalization The peak of globalization has been a central part of the BCA view for several years.3 Long before the current crisis, it was clear that anti-globalization forces were gathering strength, illustrated by increased trade barriers, a backlash against inward migration in many countries, and reduced flows of foreign direct investment (Chart 2). The Trump Administration’s imposition of tariffs and the Brexit vote were two of the more obvious examples of the change in attitudes. The supply-chain interruptions caused by factory shutdowns in China will reinforce the view that shifting production to cheaper-cost countries overseas went too far. At a minimum, it seems inevitable that many companies will seek to reduce their reliance on a single producer for critical components. On the medical front, one striking fact to emerge was that China supplies around 80% of US antibiotics. There will be massive pressure to develop greater homegrown supplies of medical supplies and other products deemed critical for economic and national security. The crisis also has led to a breakdown of the Schengen Area of open borders within the European Union (EU). Many member countries have reinstituted border controls and it is unclear when these might be removed. The free movement of people is a core principle of the EU. Meanwhile, the Maastricht Treaty rules on fiscal discipline, a key element of economic union, have been thrown out of the window. Even Germany has bowed to the pressure of relaxing fiscal constraints. Finally, a worsening situation for the already troubled Italian banking system will threaten EU financial stability. Overall, the crisis will leave a huge question mark over the long-term viability of the EU. Globalization was a major force behind disinflation as production shifted to low-cost producers. A reversal of this trend will thus be inflationary, at the margin. For many, this will be a price worth paying if it means increased job security and reduced vulnerability of supply chains. But the shift away from globalization will not be the only trend that threatens an eventual resurgence of inflation. The Explosion In Government Debt: Last Gasp Of  The Debt Supercycle BCA introduced the concept of the Debt Supercycle more than 40 years ago to describe the actions of policymakers to pump up demand rather than allow financial imbalances to be fully unwound during economic downturns. This inevitably meant that each new cycle began with a higher level of financial imbalances. As indebtedness rose, the economic costs of a financial cleansing increased, requiring ever-more desperate policy measures to shore things up. Unfortunately, such actions merely created the conditions for greater excesses and imbalances down the road. For example, the Federal Reserve’s aggressive response to the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000 helped set the scene for the even bigger housing bubble later in the decade. In that sense, the Debt Supercycle was a self-reinforcing trap that was bound to end badly, and that occurred in 2007. Chart 3The US Household Love Affair With Debt Died A Decade Ago The US Household Love Affair With Debt Died A Decade Ago The US Household Love Affair With Debt Died A Decade Ago Our discussion of the US Debt Supercycle was focused largely on the private sector because that is where rising imbalances posed the greatest threat to economic and financial stability. Rising public sector imbalances were less of a concern because governments do not finance themselves through the banking sector. Moreover, unlike the private sector, taxes can always be raised to boost revenues or, in extremis, the authorities can resort to the printing press. At the end of 2014, we wrote that the Debt Supercycle was dead. By that, we meant that easing policy would no longer be able to encourage a new cycle of leverage-financed private-sector spending. The downturn of 2007-09 was a turning point in attitudes toward debt, much in the way that those who lived through the Great Depression were financially conservative for the rest of their lives. Our view has been vindicated by the fact the ratio of household debt to income has decisively broken its pre-housing bubble uptrend and has failed to revive in the face of record-low interest rates (Chart 3). Corporate borrowing has been strong, but largely to finance stock buybacks and M&A activity. Capital spending has been disappointing this cycle, despite strong profits and margins. The current deep downturn will add a further nail in the coffin of the private sector Debt Supercycle. The shock of the recession and destruction of wealth will leave a legacy of increased financial caution with households wanting to build precautionary savings and companies striving to repair damaged balance sheets. It would not be a surprise to see the US personal saving rate head back to the double-digit levels of the early 1980s. While the private sector embraces greater financial conservatism, we are witnessing the start of an extraordinary surge in public sector deficits and debt from already high levels. Chart 4A Bad Starting Point For A Surge In The Federal Deficit A Bad Starting Point For A Surge In The Federal Deficit A Bad Starting Point For A Surge In The Federal Deficit Budget deficits automatically rise during recessions because tax receipts drop and spending on unemployment and welfare programs goes up (Chart 4). In the past, the starting point for deficits generally was low before a recession took hold. This time, the federal deficit has breached 5% of GDP when the economy was doing fine. With the current recession set to be deeper than in 2007-09 and fiscal stimulus likely to end up much more than the initial $2 trillion package, the deficit will far exceed the previous post-WWII peak of almost 10% of GDP, reached in fiscal 2009. The ratio of federal debt to GDP will soar past 100% within the next few years, exceeding the peak reached in WWII. A speedy decline in WWII debt burdens was helped by a sharp rebound in economic activity, supported by a powerful combination of demographics (the post-WWII baby boom) and pent-up demand. Real GDP grew at an average annualized pace of 4.3% in both the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, slower population growth means that growth in the next one and two decades will be less than half that pace. At the same time, the federal deficit will be under upward pressure because of the impact of an aging population on healthcare and social security. In other words, restoring order to fiscal finances through normal measures (growth and/or austerity) will be an impossible task. High levels of government debt are perfectly manageable when private sector savings are plentiful, interest rates are negligible, and investors seek the safety of low-risk bonds. Thus, $1 trillion US federal deficits have not prevented Treasury yields from falling to all-time lows. However, such conditions will not last indefinitely. The timing of when bloated budget deficits start to impact markets and thus the economy will partly depend on the actions of the Fed. Monetary Policy: Is There  A Limit To What It Can Do? Gone are the days when monetary policy was a rather technical exercise: tweaking the level of interest rates to ensure that money and credit trends delivered the economic growth consistent with low and stable inflation. In the past decade, the old rule book has been discarded with policymakers forced to take ever-more extreme measures to prevent total collapse of the economic and financial system. The 2007-9 downturn was easier to deal with than the current crisis. The primary problem a decade ago was a financial rather than economic seizure. While policymakers had to be creative, the main task was to shore up systemically important financial institutions and inject enough liquidity into the system to restore normal market functioning. And it worked. This time, the issue is an economic not financial seizure and associated liquidity strains are a symptom, not the primary problem. The immediate role of central banks is again to ensure that the financial system continues to function by injecting whatever amounts of liquidity are necessary. But monetary policy cannot directly bail out all the businesses that face bankruptcy or help those that have lost their jobs. That is the role of fiscal policy. What central banks can do is print money to finance the rise in budget deficits. During WWII, the Fed had an agreement with the Treasury Department to peg the level of long-term yields below 2.5% and this arrangement persisted until 1951, long after the war ended. This ensured that a post-war rebound in private credit demand would not cause a spike in interest rates that might short-circuit the recovery. We could well see a similar arrangement in the coming years, though it might be an informal rather than publicized agreement. The key point is that the Fed will be massively biased toward easy policy for many years. The current generation of central bankers have experienced periodic threats of deflation rather than inflation during the past 20 years and that will shape how they perceive the balance of risks going forward. After the Great Depression of the 1930s, fears of deflation lingered well into the 1950s and policymakers’ resulting complacency toward inflation led to the inflation spike of the 1970s. We are at a similar point again. The Fed will remain a massive buyer of Treasury bonds, even as the economy recovers because it will not want to risk higher yields undermining growth. Even if inflation starts to rise, the Fed will justify a continued easy stance on the grounds that inflation has fallen far short of its 2% target for many years. Given the combination of a global blowout in central bank balance sheets and the retreat from globalization, the scene will be set for inflation to surprise on the upside. But this may not occur for several years because the recession will create a lot of spare capacity and deflation is a greater near-term threat than inflation. We have long argued that a sustained upturn in inflation would be preceded by a final bout of deflation. The revival of inflation may be gradual but its insidious nature ultimately will make it more dangerous. It seems inevitable that there will have to be monetization of public sector debt, not only in the US but in other major economies. Once investor confidence returns, the demand for government bonds will recede and yields will be under upward pressure. Financial repression may help contain the rise, but that cannot be a long-term solution. In the end, central banks will be the bond buyers of last resort and ultimately it will have to be written off via making the debt effectively non-maturing. If the economic picture continues to deteriorate could central banks use quantitative easing to start buying assets such as equities and real estate? Current legislation prevents such purchases in the case of the Fed and European Central Bank. Of course, legislation can always be changed but the Fed would be reluctant for Congress to change the Federal Reserve Act. That could open a can of worms including amendments such as requiring regular audits of policy decisions and altering how regional presidents are chosen. But it will not be the Fed’s decision and if things get bad enough then nothing should be ruled out. An Accelerated Move To Virtual Activity? The restrictions on travel and public meetings and the closure of many businesses have forced companies to embrace online ways of conducting operations. And the same applies to schools and universities. In many cases, companies may find that virtual meetings between far-flung offices work rather well. This could cause a major rethink about future spending on business travel. Replacing travel with virtual meetings not only saves on airfares but also frees up employee time and reduces stress. And the improvements in communication technology make virtual meetings almost as good as the real thing. Of course, this is not a great story for airlines. The same arguments can be made for education but are slightly less compelling because of the social dimension. Mixing with friends and peers is one of the big attractions for students and most would be loath to give this up. And for working parents, it is not feasible to have children stuck at home. Nonetheless, at the post-secondary level, there could be a move to more online teaching. Another consequence of the current crisis has been a forced shift to more online shopping. This trend was already well established but is now likely to accelerate. Those retailers who fail to adapt will fall by the wayside. Market Implications As noted at the outset, it is hard to make predictions without knowing how the virus will progress. But we know a few things. First, there is not much scope for bond yields to fall from current levels. Second, equity valuations have improved as a result of the collapse in prices. Third, monetary policy will remain supportive of markets for a long time. On this basis, it is easy to conclude that stocks should beat bonds handsomely over the medium and long term. The short-term picture is cloudier. If the recession is short-lived and economic activity rebounds strongly, then we currently have a good buying opportunity for stocks. But there is no way to make a prediction about this with any conviction. The case for a strong recovery is that policy is massively stimulative and there will be a lot of pent-up demand. The case for a slow and drawn-out recovery is that consumers and businesses will be left with greatly weakened balance sheets and the loss of small businesses and associated jobs could be a lasting problem. A final issue is that fears of another virus wave could weigh on consumer and business confidence. Initially, there will be some extremely strong quarters of growth but beyond that, the odds favor a drawn-out recovery rather than a vigorous one. Faced with such uncertainty, one strategy is to rely on technical indicators rather than economic forecasts as a judge of whether it is safe to rebuild positions in risk assets. This gives some reason for encouragement as measures of sentiment are at depressed extremes, typically seen only at major bottoms. And this is supported by momentum indicators at oversold extremes. However, a word of caution: these indicators make the case for a near-term bounce but say nothing about the durability of any rally. For some time, non-US markets have looked more appealing than Wall Street from a valuation perspective. That remains the case, but there is an important caveat. Thus far, the virus has been more of a problem for the developed countries than emerging ones (China and Iran excepted). It remains to be seen whether Africa, and Latin America and other countries in Asia and the Middle East can avoid a catastrophic spread of the virus. It could potentially be disastrous given the poor infrastructure and lack of government resources in those regions. Moreover, a shift away from globalization is not bullish for the emerging world. Some positions in gold are a good hedge given current uncertainties and the fact that inflation fears will rise long before actual inflation picks up. In normal circumstances, the extraordinary rise in the US budget deficit would be bearish for the US dollar. But other countries are following the same path so in relative terms, the US is no worse off. And there is still no serious competition to the dollar as the global reserve currency. Thus, while the dollar might weaken somewhat, it should not be a major source of risk to US assets. In closing, it is impossible to provide the certainty and high-conviction predictions that investors crave. That makes it rash to make aggressive bets on how things will play out in the economy and markets. At BCA, we favor equities over bonds but advise continued near-term caution. The bottoming process in equities could be volatile and drawn-out. Building positions gradually seems the most sensible strategy.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Chief Economist mbarnes@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 For an estimate of the virus impact on a range of economies, please see the recent OECD report “Evaluating the initial impact of COVID-19 containment measures on economic activity”. Available at: www.oecd.org 2 The report and underlying data are available at www.newyorkfed.org. 3 For example, the retreat from globalization was discussed in our 2015 Outlook report published at the end of 2014.

The end of the Debt Supercycle will be a key theme influencing economic and financial trends for many years to come. Its hallmark will remain the inability of central banks to engineer a new credit cycle, despite extremely low interest rates. China is one of the few remaining countries where the Debt Supercycle has yet to end, and history suggests the catalyst for a turning point will be a financial crisis.