Disasters/Disease

An analysis on Turkey is available below.   Highlights Due to the sizable stimulus announced by the NPC, we are upgrading our outlook for Chinese growth for this year. Nevertheless, in terms of investment strategy, we are reluctant to chase China-related plays higher at the moment. Rising geopolitical tensions between the US and China will likely produce a pullback in China-related risk assets, providing a better entry point in the months ahead. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. There is evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors worldwide. Such retail-driven manias never end well, though they can last for a while. Feature Emerging market equities are facing a critical technical resistance. Chart I-1 shows that over the past decade, EM share prices often found support at the horizontal line during selloffs. The latter could now become a resistance point. In turn, the Australian dollar and the S&P 500 have climbed to their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Stocks Are Facing A Technical Resistance EM Stocks Are Facing A Technical Resistance EM Stocks Are Facing A Technical Resistance Chart I-2S&P 500 And AUD Are At Critical Technical Juncture S&P 500 And AUD Are At Critical Technical Juncture S&P 500 And AUD Are At Critical Technical Juncture   Having rallied strongly in the past two months, it is reasonable to expect that global risk assets will take a breather as investors assess the economic and geopolitical outlooks. China: Aggressive Stimulus… China has embarked on another round of aggressive stimulus. The government program approved by the National People’s Congress (NPC) last week laid out the following macro policy objectives: Stabilize employment. The NPC has pledged to create more than 9 million new jobs in urban areas. Although this is lower than last year’s target of more than 11 million new jobs, it is very ambitious given the number of layoffs that have occurred year-to-date. Chart I-3China: Money/Credit Is Set To Re-Accelerate China: Money/Credit Is Set To Re-Accelerate China: Money/Credit Is Set To Re-Accelerate Significantly accelerate the growth rate of broad money supply and total social financing relative to last year. Indeed, broad money growth accelerated in April and will continue to move higher (Chart I-3). Lending to enterprises and households as well as overall bank asset growth have all accelerated (Chart I-3, bottom two panels). Boost aggregate government spending (budgetary and quasi-fiscal) growth to 13.2% in 2020 versus 9.5% last year.   Local government’s special bond quotas have been set at RMB 3.75 trillion yuan, compared with RMB 2.15 trillion last year. The central government will issue special bonds in the order of 1 trillion yuan. The proceeds will be transferred to local governments to support tax and fee reductions, as well as to boost consumption and investment.  Support SMEs. The government will extend its beneficial loan-repayment policy for SMEs until March 2021. It will extend exemptions for SMEs on social security contributions, VAT and other fees and taxes through to the end of this year. The government estimates a total of RMB 2.5 trillion in tax and fee reductions for companies in 2020. Table I-1 details potential scenarios for the credit and fiscal spending impulse (CFI). In our baseline scenario, the CFI will rise to 15.5% of GDP by year-end (Chart I-4). In short, in 2020 the CFI will likely be larger than it was in 2015-’16 and closer to its 2012 level. However, it will still fall short of the 2009-2010 surge. Table I-1Simulation On Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse For 2020 EM Stocks Are At A Critical Resistance Level EM Stocks Are At A Critical Resistance Level Chart I-4Our Projections For The Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse Our Projections For The Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse Our Projections For The Credit And Fiscal Spending Impulse In summary, it is fair to say that for now, the authorities have abandoned their deleveraging objective and are encouraging a substantial acceleration of both debt and credit. However, it will take time before the stimulus filters through the economy and boosts growth. This will be the case because of the following persistent headwinds: First, the reduced willingness of households and enterprises to spend. The top panel of Chart I-5 reveals that consumers’ marginal propensity to spend is falling. Enterprises’ willingness to invest continues to trend lower. Historically, companies’ willingness to invest has been a good indicator for industrial metals prices. So far it has not validated the advance in base metals (Chart I-5, bottom panel). The rationale for this correlation is that Chinese companies account for 50-55% of global industrial metals demand. Second, the COVID-19 economic downturn in China was much worse than previous downturns, and the financial health of companies and households is considerably poorer than before. This is why it will take very large amounts of stimulus to produce even a moderate recovery. In particular, a portion of the credit expansion will go toward plugging operating cash flow deficits at companies rather than to augment investment. For example, in the US, commercial and industrial loan growth surged in 2007/08 and this year (Chart I-6). In all of those cases, the underlying cause for credit acceleration was companies drawing on their credit lines to close their negative operating cashflow gaps. Chart I-5China: Households And Enterprises Are Less Willing To Spend China: Households And Enterprises Are Less Willing To Spend China: Households And Enterprises Are Less Willing To Spend Chart I-6US Loan Growth Spikes In Recessions US Loan Growth Spikes In Recessions US Loan Growth Spikes In Recessions The same phenomenon is presently occurring in China. This entails more credit origination will be required in China in this cycle before we witness a revival in capital spending. Third, geopolitical tensions between the US and China will escalate further in the months ahead. We elaborate on this in more detail below. As far as China’s growth outlook is concerned, rising geopolitical tensions with the US will weigh on both consumer and business confidence. On the whole, due to the sizable stimulus announced by the NPC, we are upgrading our outlook for Chinese growth for this year. Nevertheless, in terms of investment strategy, we are reluctant to chase China-related plays higher at the moment. Rising geopolitical tensions will likely produce a pullback in China-related risk assets, providing a better entry point in the months ahead. Chart I-7Chinese Economy: Still Very Weak Chinese Economy: Still Very Weak Chinese Economy: Still Very Weak In addition, the mainland economy is still undergoing post-lockdown normalization – not recovery. Both capital spending and household consumption are still in recession (Chart I-7).    Bottom Line: China is yet again resorting to aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus. Mainland growth is bound to improve over the remainder of the year. However, financial markets have run a bit ahead of themselves, and we will wait for a pullback before recommending China-related plays.  …But Geopolitics Is A Major Risk Despite an improving growth outlook, Asian and China-related risk assets could struggle in the months ahead due to escalating geopolitical tensions between the US and China. On the surface, the COVID-19 crisis seems to be the culprit behind rising tensions between the two nations. However, the pandemic has only accelerated an otherwise unavoidable confrontation between the existing superpower and the rising one. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team has been writing about cumulating tensions and the potential for them to boil over in the months before the US election. The contours of the rise in geopolitical tensions will be as follows: President Trump’s chances of re-election have declined, with the recession gripping the US economy and unemployment surging. There is little doubt that he will use external foes to rally the nation behind the flag. Blaming China for the pandemic and acting tough is probably the only way for Trump to switch his campaign’s nucleus from the economy to foreign policy, which will raise the odds of his election victory. The US administration will not resort to import tariffs this time around. Going forward, the administration’s goal will be cutting China’s access to foreign technology. Technology in general and semiconductors in particular will be the key battleground in this new cold war. The US will also step up its pressure on multinationals to move production out of China. The broader idea is to impede China’s technological advance. Even though the US rhetoric on China’s policies toward Hong Kong will be tough, there is little the US can do or will do regarding Hong Kong. Rather, the more important battleground will be Taiwan and its semiconductor industry. Finally, China’s political leadership cannot tolerate being perceived as weak domestically in the face of US pressures. They will retaliate against the US. One form of retaliation against Trump could be pushing North Korea to test its strategic military weapons that could undermine Trump’s foreign policy credibility in the US. Another form of retaliation could be tolerating moderate currency depreciation. The latter will challenge Trump’s claims that he has been victorious in dealing with China. The latest decision to ban US and foreign companies from accepting orders from Huawei and the slide in the value of the RMB are consistent with these narratives. To our surprise, however, financial markets in general and Asian markets in particular have not sold off meaningfully in response to the US ban on Huawei and renewed RMB depreciation. Critically, China is the world’s largest consumer of semiconductors, accounting for 35% of global semiconductor demand. Restricting Chinese purchases would be negative for global semiconductor producers. China has been aware of the risk of US restrictions on its imports of semiconductors and has been ramping up its semi imports since 2018. Semi imports have been booming even though smartphone sales had been shrinking (Chart I-8). This is a sign of large semiconductor restocking in China which has helped global semi sales in general and TSMC sales in particular in the past 18 months. In brief, major semi restocking by China in the past 18 months along with the ban on sales to Huawei all but ensure that global semiconductor sales will be weak this year. It does not seem that global semi stocks in general and Asian ones in particular are pricing in this outcome. Global semiconductor stocks are a hair below their all-time highs, and their trailing P/E ratio is at 21. Specifically, given Huawei is the second-largest customer of TSMC, the latter’s sales will be negatively affected (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Has China Been Stockpiling Semiconductors? Has China Been Stockpiling Semiconductors? Has China Been Stockpiling Semiconductors? Chart I-9TSMC Has Benefited From China Stockpiling Semiconductors TSMC Has Benefited From China Stockpiling Semiconductors TSMC Has Benefited From China Stockpiling Semiconductors Finally, both DRAM and NAND prices are falling anew (Chart I-10). Further, DRAM revenue proxy correlates with Korean tech stocks and points to lower share prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Semiconductor Prices Have Begun Falling Semiconductor Prices Have Begun Falling Semiconductor Prices Have Begun Falling Chart I-11Semiconductor Prices Are Still Deflating DRAM Revenue Proxy And Korean Tech Stocks Semiconductor Prices Are Still Deflating DRAM Revenue Proxy And Korean Tech Stocks Semiconductor Prices Are Still Deflating DRAM Revenue Proxy And Korean Tech Stocks Crucially, Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks account for 60% of the MSCI EM equity market cap. Hence, a selloff in these bourses will weigh on the EM equity index. Chart I-12 shows that the latest drawdown in these North Asian equity markets was relatively small compared to the drop in the rest of the EM equity universe. Hence, Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese share prices are not discounting a lot of bad news making them vulnerable to the geopolitical risks that lie ahead. Financial markets in Asia are very complacent to mounting geopolitical risks stemming from the US-China confrontation. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. Chart I-12North Asian Stocks Versus The Rest Of EM North Asian Stocks Versus The Rest Of EM North Asian Stocks Versus The Rest Of EM Bottom Line: Financial markets in Asia are very complacent to mounting geopolitical risks stemming from the US-China confrontation. The RMB is set to depreciate dragging down emerging Asian currencies. The large share of Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks in the MSCI EM equity index implies significant downside risks to the EM equity benchmark. The Global Economic Outlook As economies around the world open, the level of economic activity will certainly begin to rise. The opening of shops, offices and various other facilities will result in a partial normalization and an increase in economic activities.  However, we cannot call this a recovery. Rather it is just a snapback from the lockdowns which both equity and credit markets have already fully priced in. The outlook for global share prices and credit markets depends on what happens to the global economy following this post-lockdown snapback. Will the snapback be followed by an actual recovery or will the level of activity stagnate at low levels? For now, our sense is that following the initial snapback a U-shaped recovery is the most likely global scenario. This does not exclude the possibility that activity in some sectors/countries will follow a square root trajectory.  From a global macro perspective, we have the following observations to share: Certain industries will likely experience stagflation. Due to social distancing measures, they will be forced to limit their output/capacity and compensate for their increased costs by charging higher prices. In this group, we would include airlines, restaurants, and other service sector businesses. The short-term outlook for consumer spending is contingent on fiscal stimulus. A material reduction in fiscal support for households will weigh on their spending capacity. Capital spending will remain subdued outside China’s stimulus-driven local government and SOE investment outlays, and outside the technology sector, generally. Critically, economic activity in many countries and industries will remain below pre-pandemic levels until late this year. This implies that despite the snapback, some businesses will still be operating below or close to their breakeven points. This will have ramifications on their ability to service debt and on their willingness to invest and hire. Any rise in government bond yields worldwide will be limited as central banks in both DM and EM will cap yields by augmenting their purchase of government and in some cases corporate bonds. We discussed EM QE programs in detail in last week’s report. Bottom Line: It is tempting to interpret the post-lockdown snapback in economic activity as a recovery. However, the nature and depth of this recession is unique. Investors should consider both the direction of economic indicators and the level of economic activity in relation to a company’s breakeven point. This is an extremely difficult task. And that is in addition to gauging the odds of a second wave of COVID-19 infections later this year. In the context of such complexities facing investors, there is astonishing evidence that the recent equity rally has been driven by unsophisticated retail investors. A Retail-Driven Equity Rally There is growing evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors, worldwide. There is growing evidence that the equity rally from late-March lows has been driven or supercharged by retail investors, worldwide. Such retail-driven manias never end well, though they can last for a while. The following articles corroborate the worldwide phenomenon that retail investors have been opening broker accounts en masse and investing in stocks: Bored Day Traders Locked at Home Are Now Obsessed With Options Frustrated sports punters turn to US stock market Coronavirus spawns new generation of Japanese stock pickers Stuck at Home, More Filipinos Try Luck at Stock Investing It is fair to assume that retail investors do very little fundamental analysis. Not surprisingly, since March global share prices have decoupled from profit expectations. Although some professional investors have no doubt also played the rally, surveys of asset managers and traders suggest that generally they have stayed lukewarm on stocks. Specifically, the net long position of asset managers and leveraged funds in various US equity index futures remains very low (Chart I-13). Chart I-14 shows that US traders’ and professional individual investors’ sentiment on US stocks are at multi-year lows. Only US investment advisors have become fairly bullish again (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Chart I-13Fund Managers Have Stayed Lukewarm On Stocks Fund Managers Have Stayed Lukewarm On Stocks Fund Managers Have Stayed Lukewarm On Stocks Chart I-14Professional Investors’ Sentiment On Stocks Have Been Subdued Professional Investors Sentiment On Stocks Have Been Subdued Professional Investors Sentiment On Stocks Have Been Subdued Who will capitulate first: retail or professional investors? It is hard to predict the behavior of investors but, if we had to guess, our take could be summed up as follows:  If geopolitical tensions escalate much more or the number of COVID-19 inflections in some large countries rises anew, retail investors will likely sell before professional investors step in. In this scenario, share prices will drop considerably. In the case of an absence of geopolitical tensions or a new wave of infections, it is hard to see how economic data that is improving could lead to a substantial drawdown in equities even if the level of activity remains very depressed. In this case, corrections will be small and short-lived. Investment Strategy Chart I-15Beware Of Breakdowns Beware Of Breakdowns Beware Of Breakdowns For global equity portfolios, we continue recommending underweighting EM stocks. Regardless of the direction of global share prices, EM will continue underperforming DM (Chart I-15, top panel). The basis for this is rising geopolitical tensions in China and weakness in the RMB will spill over into other emerging Asian currencies (Chart I-15, bottom panel). We continue recommending short positions in the RMB and KRW versus the US dollar. In terms of the absolute performance of EM equities and credit markets, as well as EM currencies versus the greenback, we recommend being patient. Global and EM financial markets are presently at a critical juncture, as illustrated in Charts 1 and 2 on pages 1 and 2. If these and some other markets meaningfully break above current levels of resistance, we will upgrade our stance on EM stocks and credit markets and close our short positions in EM currencies versus the US dollar. If they fail to do so, a considerable selloff is likely to follow. As to EM local currency bonds, we are long duration but cautious on EM currencies. For the full list of our recommendations for EM equity, credit, local fixed-income and currency markets, please refer to pages 18 and 19.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Lin Xiang, CFA Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com     Turkish Lira: Facing A Litmus Test The Turkish lira has rolled over at its resistance level on a total return (including carry) basis (Chart II-1). The spot rate versus the US dollar is at its 2018 low. In short, the exchange rate is facing a litmus test. The culprit of a potential downleg in the lira is an enormous monetary deluge. Chart II-2 reveals that broad money supply growth has accelerated to 35% from a year ago. Local currency money supply is skyrocketing because the central bank and commercial banks are engaged in rampant money creation and public debt monetization. Chart II-1Turkish Lira (Including Carry): A Good Point To Short Turkish Lira (Including Carry): A Good Point To Short Turkish Lira (Including Carry): A Good Point To Short Chart II-2Turkey’s Broad Money: The Sky Is The Limit Turkey's Broad Money: The Sky Is The Limit Turkey's Broad Money: The Sky Is The Limit While such macro policies could benefit economic growth in the short term, they also herald growing inflationary pressures and currency devaluation. First, Turkish commercial banks have been on a government bonds buying binge since 2018 (Chart II-3, top panel). They presently own 62% of total local currency government bonds, up from 45% in early 2018. In addition, the central bank is de-facto engaging in government debt monetization. The Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) has bought TRY 40 billion of government bonds in the secondary market since March (Chart II-3, bottom panel). When a central bank or commercial bank buys a local currency asset from a non-bank, a new local currency deposit is created in the banking system and the money supply expands.  Chart II-3Turkey: Public Debt Monetization In Full Force Turkey: Public Debt Monetization In Full Force Turkey: Public Debt Monetization In Full Force Chart II-4Turkey: Loan Growth Exceeds 30% Turkey: Loan Growth Exceeds 30% Turkey: Loan Growth Exceeds 30% Second, the commercial banks’ local currency loan growth has surged to 32% (Chart II-4). Government lending schemes and newly introduced regulations are incentivizing commercial banks to continue lending in order to boost domestic demand. In particular, state owned banks are providing loans at interest rates well below both the policy and inflation rates. The most likely outcome from such policies is rampant capital misallocation and an increase in non-performing loans. The former will weigh on productivity in the long turn. Third, the central bank has been providing enormous amounts of liquidity to commercial banks (Chart II-5, top panel). The latter’s local currency excess reserves – which are exclusively created out of thin air by the central bank - have surged (Chart II-5, bottom panel). In fact, the effective policy rate has been hovering below the actual policy rate, suggesting that there is an excess liquidity overflow in the banking system. In a nutshell, the central bank has been providing fuel to commercial banks to expand money supply via the purchases of local currency government bonds and loan origination. Fourth, an overly loose monetary stance will lead to higher inflation and currency devaluation. Moreover, wages continue to expand at an annual rate of 15-20%, confirming the fact that inflationary pressures are genuine and broad within this economy (Chart II-6). Higher inflation, and the consequent loss of purchasing power, is leading residents to switch their holdings of liras to foreign currencies. Chart II-5Central Banks' Liquidity Provision To Banks Central Banks' Liquidity Provision To Banks Central Banks' Liquidity Provision To Banks Chart II-6Turkey: A Sign Of Genuine Inflation Turkey: A Sign Of Genuine Inflation Turkey: A Sign Of Genuine Inflation Higher inflation, and the consequent loss of purchasing power, is leading residents to switch their holdings of liras to foreign currencies. Finally, Turkey’s current account deficit is set to widen, and the central bank’s net foreign currency reserves are non-existent at best. Booming credit growth will keep domestic demand and imports stronger than they otherwise would be. In the meantime, the complete collapse in tourism revenues and Turkey’s large foreign debt obligations, estimated at $160 billion over the next six months, entail negative balance of payment dynamics. Barring capital controls, Turkey will not be able to preclude further currency depreciation. Investment Implications Short the Turkish lira versus the US dollar. We recommend dedicated equity investors underweight Turkish equities and credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Also, we are reiterating our short Turkish banks / long Russian banks position. Local currency yields will offer little protection against currency depreciation. As such, investors should underweight domestic bonds.   Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The good stock market = ‘growth defensives’ like technology that benefit from lower bond yields. The bad stock market = ‘value cyclicals’ like banks that suffer from lower bond yields. Structurally favour growth defensives given that ultra-low bond yields are here to stay. Adjust the sovereign bond portfolio to: Long 30-year US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos. Short 30-year German Bunds and French OATs. Fractal trade: Long 10-year Spanish Bonos, short 10-year New Zealand bonds. Feature It has become increasingly meaningless to talk about ‘the stock market’ as one entity. The stock market has split into two distinct markets: a ‘good stock market’ and a ‘bad stock market’. To be clear, the split started before the coronavirus crisis, but the crisis has hastened the break-up (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekThe Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market What distinguishes the good stock market from the bad stock market? The answer is the relationship with the bond yield. For the good market, the dominant message from lower bond yields is a valuation boom and higher prices (Chart I-2); but for the bad market, the dominant message from lower bond yields is a profits recession and lower prices. Chart I-2Tech Stocks Rally On Lower Bond Yields Tech Stocks Rally On Lower Bond Yields Tech Stocks Rally On Lower Bond Yields The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market For the good stock market, the valuation uplift that comes from lower bond yields far outweighs the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits. Conversely, for the bad stock market, the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits far outweighs any valuation uplift from lower bond yields. For the ‘good stock market’, the valuation uplift from lower bond yields outweighs the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits.  The valuation uplift from lower bond yields is greatest for growth stocks. This is because the further into the future that cashflows are, the greater the increase in their ‘net present values’ Moreover, this valuation uplift becomes exponential at ultra-low bond yields. As bond prices start to have less upside than downside, they become riskier. Hence, both components of the required return on growth stocks – the bond yield and the equity risk premium – shrink together, justifying the exponentially higher net present value (Chart I-3).   Chart I-3Tech Valuations Rise Exponentially On Lower Bond Yields Tech Valuations Rise Exponentially On Lower Bond Yields Tech Valuations Rise Exponentially On Lower Bond Yields Meanwhile, the coronavirus induced slump to sales and profits is greatest for cyclical stocks. For many cyclicals – such as airlines, hotels, and restaurants – the hit to sales, profits, and employment will be long-lasting, as consumer and business behaviour adapts to the post Covid-19 world. Hence: The good stock market = ‘growth defensives’ whose epitome is technology. The bad stock market = ‘value cyclicals’ whose epitome is banks (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Banks Sell Off On Lower Bond Yields Banks Sell Off On Lower Bond Yields Banks Sell Off On Lower Bond Yields Banks suffer a double whammy. Not only does the lower bond yield signify a structurally poor outlook for credit creation which constitutes bank ‘sales’, but the flattening yield curve also signifies a shrinking net interest (profit) margin. Euro area banks suffer an additional complication. They are exposed to the sovereign yield spread on ‘periphery’ bonds such as Italian BTPs over German bunds. A widening of such spreads signals heightening tensions within the euro area, which hurts the solvencies of periphery banks with large holdings of periphery bonds (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Euro Area Banks Also Sell Off On Wider Sovereign Yield Spreads Euro Area Banks Also Sell Off On Wider Sovereign Yield Spreads Euro Area Banks Also Sell Off On Wider Sovereign Yield Spreads It follows that euro area banks need two conditions to rally. High quality bond yields must rise, and peripheral euro area yield spreads must fall. Given that such a star alignment is likely to be the exception rather than the norm, euro area banks should be bought for the occasional countertrend rally when technical signals justify it. Right now, the required signal is for high-quality bonds to become technically overbought, presaging a tactical bout of bond underperformance and bank outperformance. However, our most-trusted technical indicator is not yet giving the required signal. Stay tuned (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Bonds Are Not Yet Technically Overbought Bonds Are Not Yet Technically Overbought Bonds Are Not Yet Technically Overbought In the meantime, we prefer to play the euro area’s increasing solidarity – specifically, to underwrite a €500bn coronavirus recovery plan – through relative value positions in sovereign bonds. In our recent webcast Why Leaving The Euro Would be MAD, But Mad Things Happen we pointed out that in the euro era, labour market competitiveness in Spain has improved by more than in France. Making it hard to justify the near 100bps yield premium on 30-year Spanish Bonos versus French OATs (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Yield Premium On Spanish Bonos Is Hard To Justify The Yield Premium On Spanish Bonos Is Hard To Justify The Yield Premium On Spanish Bonos Is Hard To Justify Since inception a year ago, our long 30-year US T-bonds and Italian BTPs versus 30-year German Bunds and Spanish Bonos is up by 15 percent. It is time to adjust this bond portfolio. Go long 30-year US T-bonds and Spanish Bonos versus 30-year German Bunds and French OATs. And take profit on long 10-year Italian BTPs versus 10-year Spanish Bonos. Are Ultra-Low Bond Yields Sustainable? At first glance, the divergence of the stock market into a booming good part and a languishing bad part might tempt investors to play long-term ‘mean reversion’: specifically, to sell growth defensives like technology and buy value cyclicals like banks. But be careful. The concept of mean reversion is only meaningful if the underlying trend is sideways – or in technical terms ‘stationary’. Statistics 101 warns us that if the underlying trend is not stationary, the concept of mean reversion – and indeed the much-abused concept of ‘standard deviation’ – is meaningless. If inflation persists below 2%, bond yields will remain ultra-low. Given that all investment is now just one big correlated trade to the bond yield, this raises a crucial question: is the bond yield stationary? Put another way, are bonds in an almighty bubble? Are bond yields unsustainably low, and at risk of a violent spike upwards? The answer depends on a further question: is sub-2 percent inflation unsustainably low? (Chart I-8) If inflation persists below central banks’ totemic 2 percent inflation target, then central banks will have no choice but to push and hold the monetary easing ‘pedal to the metal’. Therefore, bond yields will keep trending lower until, one by one, they reach the lower bound at around -1 percent. Chart I-8Is Sub-2 Percent Inflation Unsustainably Low? Is Sub-2 Percent Inflation Unsustainably Low? Is Sub-2 Percent Inflation Unsustainably Low? To us, the answer to this question is crystal clear. Not only is sub-2 percent inflation sustainable, it is the norm. Genuine price stability is not an arbitrary 2 percent inflation target that central banks can pluck out of the air. Rather, it is a steady state of broadly flat-lining prices that economies can remain in for centuries, so long as governments do not debase the broad money supply. Between 1675 and 1914 – when Great Britain was mostly on the gold standard – the price level barely budged, meaning inflation averaged near-zero for hundreds of years (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Inflation Averaged Near-Zero For Hundreds Of Years Inflation Averaged Near-Zero For Hundreds Of Years Inflation Averaged Near-Zero For Hundreds Of Years Today we have fiat money rather than the gold standard. However, the rapidly growing cryptocurrency asset-class is an embryonic 21st century gold standard ‘waiting in the wings.’ The mere fact that an alternative, and potentially superior, monetary system is waiting in the wings is a strong incentive for competent governments to preserve the value of fiat money. Which is to say, an incentive not to destroy the genuine price stability that advanced economies have now re-entered after a brief lapse in the 20th century. Ultra-Low Bond Yields Are Here To Stay, Structurally Favouring Growth Defensives It is in the gift of governments to destroy price stability should they desire. Witness Argentina, Venezuela or Zimbabwe. Yet these examples and the example of the 1970s teach us that when price stability is destroyed, inflation appears non-linearly, which is to say unpredictably and uncontrollably. This is because it suddenly becomes rational for governments to create money as fast as possible, and for consumers and firms to spend it as fast as possible. As the product of money supply and its velocity equals nominal demand, inflation skyrockets (Chart I-10). Chart I-10When Price Stability Is Destroyed, Inflation Appears Non-Linearly The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market The Good Stock Market, And The Bad Stock Market An early warning sign that governments are on the road to Venezuela is that central banks lose their independence. Or, at the very least, their inflation-targeting remits become diluted. Neither of these seem conceivable right now. Sub-2 percent inflation was the norm for hundreds of years. Never say never – but in the advanced economies the destruction of price stability is a tail-risk rather than a central threat. The upshot is that ultra-low bond yields are here to stay. Long-term investors should structurally own the good stock market – growth defensives – and structurally avoid the bad stock market – value cyclicals. That said, from time to time, there will be tactical countertrend opportunities to go long value cyclicals like banks. Stay tuned for those tactical opportunities. This leaves one final question: when all investment has just become one big correlated trade to the bond yield, how can investors take on uncorrelated positions to diversify? The answer is to take long-short positions within growth defensives, and within value cyclicals. For example, within growth defensives right now, stay tactically long personal products versus healthcare. Fractal Trading System* As discussed, Spanish Bonos offer good relative value. They are also technically oversold relative to other developed market sovereign bonds. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is long Spanish 10-year Bonos, short New Zealand 10-year bonds. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.5 percent. In other trades, long PLN/EUR quickly achieved its 2 percent profit target at which it was closed. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 62 percent. Chart I-11 10-Year Bond: Spain VS. New Zealand 10-Year Bond: Spain VS. New Zealand When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

What Can 1918/1919 Teach Us About COVID-19?   “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana – 1905 Chart II-1Coronavirus: As Contagious But Not As Deadly As Spanish Flu June 2020 June 2020 Today’s economy is very different to that of 100 years ago. Many countries then were in the middle of World War I (which ended in November 1918). The characteristics of the Spanish Flu which struck the world in 1918 and 1919 were also different to this year’s pandemic. COVID-19 is almost as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but it is much less deadly (Chart II-1). Healthcare systems and treatments today are far more advanced than those of a century ago: many people who caught Spanish flu died of complications caused by bacterial pneumonia, given the absence of antibiotics. Influenza viruses tend to mutate rapidly: the influenza virus in 1918 first mutated to become far more virulent in its second wave, and then to become much milder. Coronaviruses have a “proofreading” capacity and mutate less easily.1  Nevertheless, an analysis of the pandemic of 100 years ago provides a number of insights into the current crisis, particularly now that policymakers are easing social-distancing rules to help the economy, even at the risk of more cases and deaths. Among the lessons of 1918-1919: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) do lower mortality rates. The speed at which NPIs are implemented and the period of implementation are as important as the number of measures taken. Removing or relaxing measures too early can lead to a renewed rise in mortality rates. It is hard to compare current fiscal and monetary policies to those taken during the 1918 pandemic, since policy in both areas was already easy before the pandemic as a result of the world war. However, a severe pandemic would certainly call for a wartime-like fiscal and monetary response. The economy was negatively impacted by the pandemic in 1918-19 but, despite the shock to industrial activity and employment, the economy subsequently rebounded quickly, in a V-shaped recovery. Introduction Predicting how the economy will react to the COVID-19 pandemic is hard. Governments and policymakers face multiple uncertainties: How effective are different containment measures? Will cases and deaths rebound quickly if lockdown measures are eased? When will the coronavirus disappear? When will a vaccine be ready? With an event unprecedented in the experience of anyone alive today, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from history. For this Special Report, we attempt to draw some parallels between the current situation and the 1918-19 Spanish flu. We focus on the different containment efforts implemented, the role that fiscal and monetary policies played, the impact on markets and the economy, and whether history can throw any light on how the COVID-19 crisis might pan out. The 1918 Spanish Flu Chart II-2The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal in modern history. Soldiers returning from World War I helped spread the pandemic across the globe. The first recorded case is believed to have been in an army camp in Kansas. While there is no official count, researchers estimate that about 500 million people contracted the virus globally, with a mortality rate of between 5% and 10%. The pandemic occurred over three waves in 1918 and 1919 – the first in the spring of 1918, the second (and most deadly) in the fall of 1918, and the third in spring 1919 (Chart II-2). In the US alone, official data estimate that around 500,000 deaths (or over 25% of all deaths) in 1918 and 1919 were caused by pneumonia and influenza.2 The pandemic moved swiftly to Europe and reached Asia by mid-1918, but became more lethal only towards the end of the year (Map II-1).3 Map II-1The Spread Of Influenza Through Europe June 2020 June 2020 Initially, scientists were puzzled by the origin of the influenza and its biology. It was not until a decade later, in the early 1930s, that Richard Shope isolated the particular influenza virus from infected pigs, confirming that a virus caused the Spanish Flu, not a bacterium as most had thought. Many of those who caught this strain of influenza died as a result of their lungs filling with fluid in a severe form of pneumonia. In reporting death rates, then, it is considered best practice to include deaths from both influenza and pneumonia. The first wave had almost all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit of a highly contagious strain. Symptoms were similar and mortality rates were only slightly higher than a normal influenza. The first wave went largely unnoticed given that deaths from pneumonia were common then. US public health reports show that the disease received little attention until it reappeared in a more severe form in Boston in September 1918.4 Most countries did not begin investigating and reporting cases until the second wave was underway (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Most Countries Began Reporting Only When The Second Wave Hit June 2020 June 2020 This second wave – which was more lethal because the virus had mutated – had a unique characteristic. Unlike the typical influenza mortality curve – which is usually “U” shaped, affecting mainly the very young and elderly – the 1918 influenza strain had a “W”-shaped mortality curve – impacting young adults as well as old people (Chart II-4). This pattern was evident in all three waves, but most pronounced during the second wave. The reason for this was that the infection caused by the influenza became hyperactive, producing a “cytokine storm” – when mediators secreted from the immune system result in severe inflammation.5 Simply put, as the virus became virulent, the body’s immune system overworked to fight it. Younger people, with strong immune systems, suffered most from this phenomenon. Chart II-4A Unique Characteristic: Impacting Younger Adults June 2020 June 2020 By the summer of 1919, the pandemic was over, since those who had been infected had either died or recovered, therefore developing immunity. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if “herd immunity” was achieved. However, some historical accounts and research – particularly for army groups in the US and the UK – suggest that those exposed to the disease in the first mild wave were not affected during the second more severe wave.6 The failure to define the causative pathogen at the time made development of a vaccine impossible. Nevertheless, some treatments and remedies showed modest success. These varied from using a serum – obtained from people who had recovered, who therefore had antibodies against the disease – to simple symptomatic drugs and various oils and herbs. The Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) Chart II-5Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough What we today call “social distancing” showed positive effects during the 1918-19 pandemic. These included measures very similar to those applied today: school closures, isolation and quarantines, bans on some sorts of public gatherings, and more. However, there were few travel bans. The number of passengers carried during the months of the pandemic did noticeably decline though (Chart II-5). Table II-1, based on research by Hatchett, Mecher and Lipsitch, breaks down NPIs by type for 17 major US cities. Most cities implemented a wide range of interventions. But it was not only the type of NPIs implemented that made a difference, but also the speed and length of implementation. Further research by Markel, Lipman and Navarro based on 43 US cities shows that the median number of days between the first reported influenza case and the first NPI implementation was over two weeks. The median period during which various NPIs were implemented was about six weeks (Table II-2). Table II-1Measures Applied Then Are Very Similar To Those Applied Today June 2020 June 2020 Table II-2NPIs Were Implemented Only For Short Periods June 2020 June 2020 Markel, Lipman and Navarro's findings show that a rapid public-health response was an important factor in reducing the mortality rate by slowing the rate of infection, what we now refer to as “flattening the curve.” There were major differences in cities’ policies: both the speed at which they implement NPIs, and the length of the implementation period. Chart II-6 shows that: Cities that acted quickly to implement NPIs slowed the rate of infections and deaths (Chart II-6, panel 1) Cities that acted quickly had lower mortality rates from influenza and pneumonia (Chart II-6, panel 2) Cities that implemented NPIs for longer periods had fewer deaths (Chart II-6, panel 3) Chart II-7 quantifies the number of NPIs taken, the time it took to implement the measures, and the length of NPIs to gauge policy strictness. Cities with stricter enforcement had lower death rates than those with laxer measures. Chart II-6Fast Response And Longer Implementation Led To Fewer Deaths... June 2020 June 2020 Chart II-7...So Did Policy Strictness June 2020 June 2020     For example, Kansas City, less than a week after its first reported case, had implemented quarantine and isolation measures. By the second week, schools, churches, and other entertainment facilities closed. Schools reopened a month later (in early November) but quickly shut again until early January 1919. While we do not have definitive dates on when each NPI was lifted, some sort of protective measures in Kansas City were in place for almost 170 days. By contrast, Philadelphia, one of the cities hardest hit by Spanish Flu, took more than a month to implement any measures. Its tardiness meant that it reached a peak mortality rate much more quickly: in 13 days compared to 31 days for Kansas City. Even after the first reported case, the Liberty Loans Parade was still held on September 28, 1918 – with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of spectators might be vulnerable to infection.7,8 It was not until a few days later that institutions were closed and a ban on public gatherings was imposed. Many other cities also held a Liberty Loans Parade, including Pittsburgh and Washington DC, but Philadelphia’s was the deadliest. Studies also show that relaxing interventions too early could be as damaging as implementing them too late. St. Louis, for example, was quick to lift restrictions and suffered particularly badly in the second wave as a result. It later reinstated NPIs up until end of February 1919. Other cities that eased restrictions too early (San Francisco and Minneapolis, for example) also suffered from a second swift, albeit milder, increase in weekly excess death rates from pneumonia and influenza (Chart II-8). Chart II-8Relaxing Lockdown Measures Too Early Can Lead To A Second Rise In Deaths... June 2020 June 2020 Chart II-9...And So Can Highly Effective Measures June 2020 June 2020 Of course, NPIs cannot be implemented indefinitely. A recent research paper by Bootsma and Ferguson raises the point that suppressing a pandemic may not be the best strategy because it just leaves some people susceptible to infection later. They argue that highly effective social distancing measures, which allow a susceptible pool of people to reintegrate into society when the measures are lifted, are likely to lead to a resurgence in infections and fatalities in a second peak (Chart II-9).9 They suggest an optimal level of control measures to reduce R (the infection rate) to a value that makes a significant portion of the population immune once measures are lifted.  The Impact Of The Spanish Flu On The Economy And Markets How did the Spanish Flu pandemic affect the economy? Many pandemic researchers ignore the official recession identified by the NBER during the months of the pandemic (between August 1918 and March 1919).10 The reason is that most of the evidence indicates that the economic effects of the 1918-19 pandemic were short-term and relatively mild.11 Disentangling drivers of the economy is, indeed, tricky given that WW1 ended in November 1918. However, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact of the pandemic since the war had such a big impact on the economy, as well as investor and public sentiment. Various research papers support the fact that, while the pandemic did indeed have an adverse effect on the economy, NPIs did not just depress mortality rates, but also sped the post-pandemic economic recovery.12 Research by Correia, Sergio, and Luck showed that the areas most severely affected by the pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity, whereas cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively, experienced a relative increase in economic activity post the pandemic.13 Their findings are based on the increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic compared to before it (1919 versus 1914). However, note that the rise of manufacturing payrolls in 1919 was high everywhere given the return of soldiers post-WWI. The researchers also note that those cities hardest hit by the pandemic also saw a negative impact on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets. Chart II-10Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Because Spanish flu disproportionately killed younger adults, many families lost their breadwinner. In economic terms, this implies both a negative supply shock and negative demand shock. If fewer employees are available to produce a certain good, supply will fall. The same reduction in employment also implies reduced income and therefore lower purchasing power. Both cases will result in a decrease in output. However, the change in prices depends on the decline of supply relative to demand. In 1918-19, the impact was disinflationary: demand declined by more than supply, and both spending and consumer prices fell during the pandemic (Chart II-10). US factory employment fell by over 8% between March 1918 and March 1919 – the period from the beginning of the first wave until the end of the second wave. It is important to note, however, that few businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic years (Chart II-11). Additionally, the November 1918 Federal Reserve Bulletin highlighted that many cities, including New York, Kansas City, and Richmond, experienced a shortage of labor due to the influenza.14 Factory employment in New York fell by over 10% during this period. The link between the labor shortages and the decline in industrial production is unclear. Industrial activity in the US peaked just before the second wave, contracting by over 20% during the second wave (Chart II-12). Various industries reported disruptions: automobile production fell by 67%, anthracite coal production and shipments fell by around 45%, and railroad freight revenues declined by over seven billion ton-miles (Chart II-12, panels 2, 3 & 4). However, some of this decline is attributed to falling defense production after the war. Chart II-11Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Chart II-12Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly   Chart II-13The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic Chart II-14Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started The equity market moved in a broad range in 1915-1919 and fell sharply only ahead of the 1920 recession (Chart II-13). Seemingly, stock market participants were more focused on the war than the pandemic. The lack of reporting of the pandemic could have contributed to this: newspapers were encouraged to avoid carrying bad news for reasons of patriotism and did not widely cover the pandemic until late 1918.15 The Federal Reserve played an active role in funding the government’s spending on the war, and so monetary policy was very easy during the pandemic – but for other reasons. The Fed used its position as a lender to the banking system to facilitate war bond sales.16 Interest rates were cut in 1914 and 1915 even before the US entered the war. The US economy had been in recession between January 1913 and December 1914. Policy rates remained low throughout 1916 and 1917 and slightly rose in 1918 and 1919. It was not until 1920 that Federal Reserve Bank System tightened policy rapidly to choke off inflation, which accelerated to over 20% in mid-1920 – rising inflation being a common post-war phenomenon (Chart II-14). The Lessons Of 1918-19 For The Coronavirus Pandemic Non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be implemented until a vaccine, effective therapeutic drugs, or mass testing is available. Relaxing measures prematurely is as damaging as a tardy reaction to the pandemic. Reacting quickly and imposing multiple measures for longer periods not only reduces mortality rates, but also improves economic outcomes post-crisis. The economy suffers in the short-term: supply and demand shocks lead to lower output. The demand shock however is larger leading to lower prices and disinflationary pressures, at least during and immediately after the pandemic.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation   Footnotes 1 Please see the Q&A with immunologist and Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, published by BCA Research April 1st 2020: BCA Research Special Report, “Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers,” available at bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Leading Cause of Death, 1990-1998,” CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 3 Please see Ansart S, Pelat C, Boelle PY, Carrat F, Flahault A, Valleron AJ, “Mortality burden of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in Europe,” NCBI. 4 Please see Public Health Report, vol. 34, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1919. 5 Please see Qiang Liu, Yuan-hong Zhou, Zhan-qiu Yang Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan; 13(1): 3–10. 6 Please see Shope, R. (1958) Public Health Rep. 73, 165–178. 7 The Liberty Loans Parade was intended to promote the sale of government bonds to pay for World War One. 8 Please see Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M (2007) "Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic,"PNAS 104: 7582–7587. 9 Please see Bootsma M, Ferguson N, “The Effect Of Public Health Measures On The 1918 Influenza Pandemic In U.S. Cities,” PNAS (2007). 10 Please see https://www.nber.org/cycles.html 11 Please see https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/res…12 Please see https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/03/fight-the-pandemic-save-the-economy-lessons-from-the-1918-flu.html. 12 Please see Correia, Sergio and Luck, Stephan and Verner, Emil, Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu (March 30, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561560 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560. 13 Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- and Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1935. "November 1918," Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1918). 14 Please see https://newrepublic.com/article/157094/americas-newspapers-covered-pandemic. 15 Please see https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_role_during_wwi.

    Highlights Risk assets continue to ignore the dire state of the economy. “Don’t fight the Fed” will dictate investment policy for the coming months. Populism and supply-chain diversification will shape the world after COVID-19. Global stimulus will result in higher long-term inflation when the labor market returns to full employment. Asset prices are not ready for higher inflation rates. Precious metals, especially silver, will offer inflation protection. Stocks should structurally outperform bonds, even if they generate lower returns than in the past. Tech will continue to rise for now, but this sector will suffer when inflation turns higher. Feature Despite the continued collapse in economic activity, the S&P 500 remains resilient, bolstered by the largesse of the Federal Reserve and US government, and generous stimulus packages in other major economies. Stocks will likely climb even higher with this backdrop, but a violent second wave of COVID-19 infections may derail the scenario in the near term. The biggest risk, which is long-term in nature, is rising inflation. Public debt ratios will skyrocket in the G-10 and many emerging markets. Private debt loads, which are elevated in most countries, will also increase. Add rising populism and ageing populations into this mix and the incentive to push prices higher and reduce real debt loads becomes too enticing. Long-term investors must be wary. For the time being, overweight equities relative to bonds, but the specter of rising inflation suggests that growth stocks (e.g. tech) will not offer attractive long-term returns. Investors with an eye on multi-year returns should use the ongoing surge in growth stocks to strategically switch their portfolios toward small-cap equities, traditional cyclicals and precious metals. Economic Freefall Continues Most economic indicators paint a dismal picture for the US. Industrial activity is suffering tremendously. In April, industrial production collapsed by 15%, a pace matching the depth of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). The ISM New Orders-to-Inventories ratio remains extremely weak with no glimmer of a rebound in IP in May. The numbers for trucking activity and railway freight are equally poor. Chart I-1A Worried Consumer Saves A Worried Consumer Saves A Worried Consumer Saves The US labor market has not been this ill since the 1930s. 20.5 million jobs vanished in April and the unemployment rate soared to 14.7%, despite a 2.5 percentage point decline in the participation rate. The number of employees involuntarily working in part-time positions has surged by 5.9 million, which has hiked up the broader U-6 unemployment rate to 22.8%. Wage growth has rebounded smartly to 7.7%, but this is an illusion. Average hourly earnings rose only because low-wage workers in the leisure and hospitality fields bore the brunt of the pain, accounting for 37% of layoffs. The worst news is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies any worker explicitly fired due to COVID-19 as temporarily laid off, but without a vaccine it is highly unlikely that employment in the leisure, hospitality or airline sectors will normalize anytime soon. Unsurprisingly, lockdowns have limited the ability of households to spend. Americans have boosted their savings rate to 13.1%, the highest level in 39 years, as they worry about catching a potentially deadly illness, losing their jobs, watching their incomes fall, or all of the above (Chart I-1). This double hit to both employment and consumer confidence sparked a 22% collapse in retail sales on an annual basis in April, the worst reading on record. Putting it all together, real GDP contracted at a 4.8% quarterly annualized rate in Q1 2020 and the Congressional Budget Office expects second-quarter annual growth to plummet to -37.7%. The New York Fed’s Weekly Economic Index suggests a more muted contraction of 11.1% (Chart I-2), which would still represent a post-war record. Investors must look beyond the gloom. The economic weakness is not limited to the US. In Europe and in emerging markets, retail sales and auto sales are disappearing at an unparalleled pace. Industrial production readings in those economies have been catastrophic and manufacturing PMIs are still in deeply contractionary territory. As a result, our Global Economic A/D line and our Global Synchronicity indicator continues to flash intense weakness (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The Worst Is Still To Come The Worst Is Still To Come The Worst Is Still To Come Chart I-3Dismal Growth, Everywhere Dismal Growth, Everywhere Dismal Growth, Everywhere   Chart I-4China Leads The Way China Leads The Way China Leads The Way Investors must look beyond the gloom. China’s experience with COVID-19 is instructive despite questions regarding the number of cases reported. China was the first country to witness the painful impact of COVID-19 and the quarantines needed to fight the disease. It was also the first country to control the virus’s spread and, most importantly, to escape the lockdown, along with being the first to enact economic stimulatory measures. The results are clear: industrial production, domestic new orders, and to a lesser extent, retail sales, are all experiencing V-shaped recoveries (Chart I-4). Even Chinese yields are rising, despite interest rate cuts by the People’s Bank of China. Accommodative Policy Matters Most The global policy “put option” is still in full force, which is boosting asset prices. A 41% rally in the median US stock reflects both a massive amount of funds inundating the financial system and a recovery that will take hold in the coming 12 months in response to this stimulus and the end of lockdowns. Global monetary policies have been even more aggressive than after the GFC. Interest rates have fallen as quickly and as broadly as they did around the Lehman bankruptcy. Moreover, unorthodox policy measures have become the norm (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Easy Policy, Everywhere Easy Policy, Everywhere Easy Policy, Everywhere In China, credit generation is quickly accelerating and has reached 28% of GDP, the highest in 2 years. Moreover, policymakers are emphasizing the need to create 9 million jobs in cities and keep the unemployment rate at 6%. Consequently, the recent rebound in construction activity will continue because it is a perfect medium to absorb excess workers. The ever-expanding quotas for local government special bonds to CNY3.75 trillion will also ensure that infrastructure spending energizes any recovery. Therefore, we expect Chinese imports of raw materials and machinery to accelerate into the second half of the year. The country’s orders of machine tools from Japan have already bottomed, which bodes well for overall Japanese orders (Chart I-6). Europe has also moved in the right direction. Government support continues to expand and combined public deficits will reach EUR 0.9 trillion, or 8.5% of GDP. Governmental guarantees have reached at least EUR1.4 trillion. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank’s balance sheet is swelling more quickly than during either the GFC or the euro area crisis (Chart I-7). Unsurprisingly, European shadow rates have collapsed to -7.6% and European financial conditions are the easiest they have been in 8 years. Chart I-6Will China's Rebound Matter? Will China's Rebound Matter? Will China's Rebound Matter? Chart I-7The ECB Is Aggressive The ECB Is Aggressive The ECB Is Aggressive   More importantly, COVID-19 has broken the taboo of common bond issuance in Europe. Last week, Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and EC President von der Leyen hatched a plan to issue common bonds that will finance a EUR 750 billion recovery fund as part of the European Commission Multiannual Financial Framework. The EC will then allocate EUR 500 billion of grants (not loans) to EU nations as long as they adhere to European principles. The unified front by the three most senior European politicians reflects elevated support for the EU among all European nations and an understanding that economic ruin in the smaller nations could capsize the core nations (Chart I-8). Hence, fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Unsurprisingly, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Greek bond spreads all narrowed significantly following the announcement. Chart I-8The Forces That Bind The Forces That Bind The Forces That Bind Chart I-9Negative Rates Are Here, Sort Of Negative Rates Are Here, Sort Of Negative Rates Are Here, Sort Of US policymakers have abandoned any semblance of orthodoxy. The Fed’s programs announced so far have lifted its balance sheet by $2.9 trillion and could generate an expansion to $11 trillion by year-end. Moreover, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has highlighted that there is “no limit” to what the Fed can do with its unconventional policy apparatus. The nature of the US funding market makes negative rates very dangerous and, therefore, highly doubtful in that country. Nonetheless, the Fed is willing to buy more paper from the public and private sectors to push the shadow rate and real interest rates further into negative territory (Chart I-9). Moreover, the Federal government has already bumped up the deficit by $3 trillion and the House has passed another $3 trillion in spending. Senate Republicans will pass some of this program to protect themselves in November. According to BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy service, a total escalation in the federal deficit of $5 trillion (or 23% of 2020 GDP) is extremely likely this year. Chart I-10The Fed Is Monetizing The Deficit The Fed Is Monetizing The Deficit The Fed Is Monetizing The Deficit Combined fiscal and monetary policy in the US will have a more invigorating impact on the recovery than the measures passed in 2008-09. They represent a larger share of output than during the GFC (10.5% versus 6% of GDP for the government spending and 15.2% versus 8.3% for the Fed’s balance sheet expansion). Moreover, the Fed is buying a much greater percentage of the Treasury’s issuance than during the GFC (Chart I-10). Therefore, the Fed is much closer to monetizing government debt than it was 11 years ago. The combined monetary and fiscal easing should result in a larger fiscal multiplier because the private sector is not financing as much of the government’s largesse. Thus, the increase in the private sector’s savings rate should be short-lived and the current account deficit will widen to reflect the greater fiscal outlays. Low real rates and a larger balance-of-payments disequilibrium should weaken the dollar which will ease US financial conditions further. A Trough In Inflation Maintaining incredibly easy monetary and fiscal conditions as the economy reopens will lead to higher inflation when the labor market reaches full employment. Core CPI has collapsed to 1.4% on an annual basis and to -2.4% on a three-month annualized basis, the lowest reading on record. The breakdown of the CPI report is equally dreadful (Chart I-11). However, CPI understates inflation because the basket measured by the BLS includes many areas of commerce currently not frequented by consumers. Items actually purchased by households, such as food, have experienced accelerating inflation in recent months. Fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Beyond this technicality, the most important factor behind the anticipated structural uptick in inflation is a large debt load burdening the global economy. Total nonfinancial debt in the US stands at 254% of GDP, 262% in the euro area, 380% in Japan, 301% in Canada, 233% in Australia, 293% in Sweden and 194% in emerging markets (Chart I-12). Historically, the easiest method for policymakers to decrease the burden of liabilities is inflation; the current political climate increases the odds of that outcome. Chart I-11Weak Core Weak Core Weak Core Chart I-12Record Debt, Everywhere Record Debt, Everywhere Record Debt, Everywhere   Households in the G-10 and emerging markets are angry. Growing inequalities, coupled with income immobility, have created dissatisfaction with the economic system (Chart I-13). Before the GFC, US households could gorge on debt to support their spending patterns, and inequalities went unnoticed. After the crisis revealed weakness in the household sector, banks tightened their credit standards and consumption slowed, constrained by a paltry expansion of the median household income. As a consequence, the American public increasingly supports left-wing economic policies (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Inequalities + Immobility = Anger June 2020 June 2020 Chart I-14The US Population's Shift To The Left June 2020 June 2020 COVID-19 is exacerbating the population’s discontent and highlighting economic disparities. The recession is hitting poor households in the US harder than the general population or highly skilled white-collar employees who can easily telecommute. Millennials, the largest demographic group in the US, are also irate. Their lifetime earnings were already lagging that of their parents because most millennials entered the job market in the aftermath of the GFC.1 Their income and balance sheet prospects were beginning to improve just as the pandemic shock struck. Finally, in response to the lockdowns and school closures caused by COVID-19, young families with children have to juggle permanent childcare and daily work demands from employers, resulting in a lack of separation between home and office.2  Economic populism will generate a negative supply shock, which will push up prices (Diagram I-1). BCA has espoused the theme of de-globalization since 20143 and COVID-19 will accelerate this trend. Firms do not want fragile supply chains that fall victim to random shocks; instead, they are looking to diversify their sources (Chart I-15). Additionally, workers and households want protection from foreign competition and perceived unfair trade practices. This sentiment is evident in a lack of trust toward China (Chart I-16). China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business (Chart I-17). Last year’s Sino-US trade war was a precursor of events to come. Diagram I-1The Inflationary Impact Of A Stifled Supply Side June 2020 June 2020 Chart I-15COVID-19 Accelerates The Desire To Repatriate Production June 2020 June 2020 Chart I-16China As A Political Piñata June 2020 June 2020 Chart I-17The Cost Of Doing International Business Will Rise The Cost Of Doing International Business Will Rise The Cost Of Doing International Business Will Rise Chart I-18A Problem For Productivity A Problem For Productivity A Problem For Productivity The rate of capital stock accumulation does not bode well for the supply side of the economy. Productivity trails the path of capex, with a long time lag. The 10-year moving average of non-residential investment in the US bottomed three years ago. Its subsequent uptick should enhance average productivity. However, the growth of the real net capital stock per employee remains weak and will not strengthen because companies are curtailing spending in the recession. Moreover, the efficiency of the capital stock is well below its long-term average and probably will not mend if supply chains are made less efficient. These factors are negative for productivity and thus, the capacity to expand the supply side of the economy (Chart I-18). Finally, a significant share of capital stock is stranded and uneconomical. The airline industry is a good example. Going forward, regulations will keep the middle row seats empty. Fewer filled seats imply that the capital stock has lost significant value, which creates a negative supply shock for the industry. To break even, airlines will have to raise the price of fares. IATA estimates that fares will increase by 43%, 49% and 54% on North American, European and Asian routes, respectively (Table I-1). The same analysis can be applied to restaurants, hotels, cinemas, etc. – industries that will have to curtail their supplies and change their practices in response to COVID-19. Table I-1The Inflationary Impact Of Supply Cuts June 2020 June 2020 Chat I-19Pandemics Boost Wages June 2020 June 2020 While rising populism will hurt the supply side of the economy, it will also hike demand. Redistribution is an outcome of populism. Corporate tax hikes hurt rich households that receive more than 50% of their income from profits. High marginal tax rates on high earners will also curtail their disposable income. Shifting a bigger share of national income to the middle class will depress the savings rate and boost demand. It is estimated that the middle class’s marginal propensity to spend is 90% compared with 60% for richer households. In fact, in the past 40 years, the shift in income distribution has curtailed demand by 3% of GDP. Pandemics also increase real wages. Òscar Jordà, Sanjay Singh, and Alan Taylor demonstrated that European real wages accelerated following pandemics (Chart I-19). Fewer willing workers contributed to the climb in real wages by decreasing the supply of labor. Higher real wages are positive for consumption. China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business. Populism will also put upward pressure on public spending. Governments globally and in the US are bailing out the private sector to an even larger extent than they did after the GFC. Discontent with expanding inequalities and the perceived lack of accountability of the corporate sector4 will push the government to be more involved in economic management than it was after 2008. Moreover, the post-2008 environment showed that austerity was negative for private sector income growth and the economic welfare of the middle class (Chart I-20). Thus, government spending and deficits as a share of GDP will be structurally higher for the coming decade. Higher deficits mechanically boost aggregate demand which is inflationary if the advance of aggregate supply is sluggish. Chat I-20Austerity Hurts June 2020 June 2020 Central banks will likely enable these inflationary dynamics. The Fed knows that it has missed its objective by a cumulative 4% since former Chairman Ben Bernanke set an official inflation target of 2% in 2012. Thus, it has lost credibility in its ability to generate 2% inflation, which is why the 10-year breakeven rate stands at 1.1% and not within the 2.3%-2.5% range that is consistent with its mandate. Moreover, the Fed is worried that the immediate deflationary impact of COVID-19 will further depress inflation expectations and reinforce low realized inflation. This logic partly explains why the Fed currently recommends more stimulus and the Federal Open Market Committee will be reluctant to remove accommodation anytime soon. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment. Central banks may fall victim to growing populism. Both the Democrats and Republicans want control over the US Fed. If Congress changes the Fed’s mandate, there would be great consequences for inflation. Prior to the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, the Fed’s mandate was to foster full employment conditions without any explicit mention of inflation. Therefore, the Fed kept the unemployment rate well below NAIRU for most of the post-war period. This tight labor market was a key ingredient behind the inflationary outbreak of the 1970s. After the reform act explicitly imposed a price stability directive on top of the Fed’s employment mandate, the unemployment rate spent a much larger share of time above NAIRU, which contributed to the structural decline in inflation after 1982 (Chart I-21). Chat I-21The Fed's Mandate Matters The Fed's Mandate Matters The Fed's Mandate Matters Finally, demographics will also feed inflationary pressures. The global support ratio peaked in 2014 as the number of workers per dependent decreased due to ageing of the population in the West and China (Chart I-22). A declining support ratio depresses the growth of the supply side of the economy because the dependents continue to consume. In today’s world, dependents are retirees, who have higher healthcare spending needs. This healthcare spending will accrue additional government spending. Moreover, it will continue to push up healthcare inflation, which will contribute to higher overall inflation (Chart I-23). Chat I-22Demographics: From Deflation To Inflation Demographics: From Deflation To Inflation Demographics: From Deflation To Inflation Chat I-23Aging Will Feed Healthcare Inflation Aging Will Feed Healthcare Inflation Aging Will Feed Healthcare Inflation   Bottom Line: COVID-19 has highlighted inequalities in the population and will accelerate a move toward populism that started four years ago. Consequently, the supply side of the economy will grow more slowly than it did in prior decades, while greater government interventions and redistributionist policies will boost aggregate demand. Additionally, monetary policy will probably stay easy for too long and demographic factors will compound the supply/demand mismatch. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment, but will not surge to 1970s levels. Investment Implications Chat I-24Breakevens Will Listen To Commodities Breakevens Will Listen To Commodities Breakevens Will Listen To Commodities Extremely accommodative economic policy and a shift to higher inflation will dominate asset markets for the next five years or more. Breakevens in the G-10 are pricing in permanently subdued inflation for the coming decade, which creates a large re-pricing opportunity if inflation troughs when the labor market reaches full employment. Investors cannot wait for inflation to turn the corner to bet on higher breakevens. After the GFC, core CPI bottomed in October 2010, but US breakevens hit their floor at 0.15% in December 2008. Instead, a rebound in commodity prices and a turnaround in the global economic outlook may signal when investors should buy breakevens (Chart I-24). Chat I-25Deleterious US Balance Of Payments Dynamics Deleterious US Balance Of Payments Dynamics Deleterious US Balance Of Payments Dynamics A repricing of inflation expectations will depress real rates. Central banks want to see inflation expectations normalize towards 2.3%-2.5% before signaling an end to accommodation. Moreover, political pressures and high debt loads will likely loosen their reaction functions to higher breakeven. As a result, real interest rates will decline because nominal ones will not rise by as much as inflation expectations. This is exactly what central banks want to achieve because it will foster a stronger recovery. Our US fixed-income strategists favor TIPS over nominal Treasurys. The dollar will probably depreciate in the post-COVID-19 environment. As we wrote last month, the US is the most aggressive reflator among major economies. The twin deficit will expand while US real rates will remain depressed. This is very negative for the USD, especially in an environment where the US money supply is outpacing global money supply (Chart I-25).5 Additionally, Chinese reflation will stimulate global industrial production, which normally hurts the dollar. EM currencies are cheap enough that long-term investors should begin to bet on them (Chart I-26), especially if global inflation structurally shifts higher. Precious metals win from the combination of higher inflation, lower real rates and a weaker dollar. However, silver is more attractive than gold. Unlike the yellow metal, it trades at a discount to the long-term inflation trend (Chart I-27). Moreover, silver has more industrial uses, especially in the solar panel and computing areas. Thus, the post-COVID-19 recovery and the need to double up supply chains will boost industrial demand for silver and lift its price relative to gold. Our FX strategists recommend selling the gold-to-silver ratio.6 Chat I-26Cheap EM FX Cheap EM FX Cheap EM FX Chat I-27Silver Is The Superior Inflation Hedge Silver Is The Superior Inflation Hedge Silver Is The Superior Inflation Hedge   Chat I-28Still Time To Favor Stocks Over Bonds Still Time To Favor Stocks Over Bonds Still Time To Favor Stocks Over Bonds Investors should favor stocks over bonds. This statement is more an indictment of the poor value of bonds and their lack of defense against rising inflation than a structural endorsement of stocks. The equity risk premium is elevated. To make this call, we need to account for the lack of stationarity of this variable and adjust for the expected growth rate of earnings. Nonetheless, once those factors are accounted for, our ERP indicator continues to flash a buy signal in favor of equities at the expense of bonds (Chart I-28). Moreover, bonds tend to underperform stocks when inflation trends up for a long time (Table I-2).   Table I-2Rising Inflation Flatters Stocks Over Bonds June 2020 June 2020 Chart I-29Bonds Are Prohibitively Expensive Bonds Are Prohibitively Expensive Bonds Are Prohibitively Expensive In absolute terms, G-7 government bonds are also vulnerable, both tactically and structurally. They are overbought and currently trade at their greatest premium to fair value since Q4 2009 and Q1 1986, two periods followed by sharp rebounds in yields (Chart I-29). Moreover, the previous experience with QE programs shows that even if real rates diminish, the reflationary impact of aggressive monetary policy on breakeven rates is enough to increase nominal interest rates (Chart I-30). Additionally, as our European Investment Strategy team indicates, bond yields are close to their practical lower bound, which creates a negative skew to their return profile.7 This asymmetric return distribution destroys their ability to hedge equity risk going forward, making this asset class less appealing to investors. This problem is particularly salient in Europe and Japan. A lower dollar, which is highly reflationary for global growth, will likely catalyze the rise in yields.   Chart I-30QE Will Lift Breakevens And Yields QE Will Lift Breakevens And Yields QE Will Lift Breakevens And Yields As long as real rates remain under downward pressure, the window to own stocks remains open, even if stocks continue to churn. Equities are expensive, but when yields are taken into consideration, their adjusted P/E is in line with the historical average (Chart I-31). Moreover, periods of weak growth associated with lower real interest rates can foster a large expansion in multiples (Chart I-32). Chart I-31Low Bond Yields Allow High Stock Multiples Low Bond Yields Allow High Stock Multiples Low Bond Yields Allow High Stock Multiples Chart I-32Multiples Will Rise Further As The Fed Floods The World With Low Rates Multiples Will Rise Further As The Fed Floods The World With Low Rates Multiples Will Rise Further As The Fed Floods The World With Low Rates Whether to have faith in stocks in absolute terms on a long-term basis is complicated by our view on inflation and populism. Strong inflation will increase nominal rates. Moreover, low productivity coupled with higher real wages, less-efficient supply chains and higher taxes will accentuate the margin compression that higher inflation typically creates. Thus, equities are expected to generate poor real returns over the long term, even if they beat bonds. Chart I-33Tech EPS Leadership Tech EPS Leadership Tech EPS Leadership Tech stocks are another structural problem for equities. Including Amazon, Google and Facebook, tech stocks account for 41% of the S&P 500’s market cap. As our US Equity Strategy service explains, wherever tech goes, so does the US market.8 Tech stocks are the current market darling. Today, the tech sector is the closest thing to a safe-haven in the mind of market participants, because a post-COVID-19 environment will favor tech spending (telecommuting, e-commerce, cloud computing, etc.). The problem for long-term investors is that this view is the most consensus view. Already, investors expect the tech sector to generate the highest EPS outperformance relative to the rest of the S&P 500 in more than 15 years (Chart I-33). Moreover, in a low-yield environment, investors are particularly willing to bid up the multiples of growth stocks such as tech equities because low interest rates result in muted discount factors for long-term cash flows. When should investors begin betting against the tech sector? Backed by a powerful narrative, tech stocks are evolving into a mania. Yet, contrarian investors understand, being too early to sell a mania can be deadly. Bond yields should not be relied on to signal an end to the bubble. During most of the 1990s, tech would outperform the market when Treasury yields declined. However, when the tech outperformance became manic, yields became irrelevant. From the fall of 1998 to the beginning of 2000, 10-year yields rose from 4.2% to 6.8%, yet the tech sector outperformed the S&P 500 by 127%. More recently, yields rose from 1.33% in the summer of 2016 to 3.25% in November 2018, but tech outperformed the broader market by 39%.   Investors should favor stocks over bonds. Instead, higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Since the 1990s, higher core inflation has led periods of tech underperformance by roughly six months. This relationship also held at the apex of the tech bubble in the second half of the 1990s (Chart I-34). Relative tech forward EPS suffers when core inflation rises, as the rest of the S&P 500 is more geared to higher nominal GDP growth. In essence, if nominal growth is less scarce, then the need to bid up growth stocks diminishes. Moreover, the dollar will likely be the first early signal because it leads nominal GDP. As a result, a weak dollar leads to a contraction in tech relative multiples by approximately 9 months (Chart I-35). Chart I-34Tech Hates Inflation... Tech Hates Inflation... Tech Hates Inflation... Chart I-35...And A Soft Dollar ...And A Soft Dollar ...And A Soft Dollar   We recommend long-term investors shift their portfolios toward industrial equities when inflation turns the corner. As a corollary, the low exposure of European and Japanese stocks to the tech sector suggests these cheap bourses will finally reverse their more-than-a-decade-long underperformance at the same time. This strategy means that even if the S&P 500 generates negative real returns during the coming decade, investors could still eke out positive returns from their stock holdings. Higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Chart I-36The Time For Commodities Is Coming Back The Time For Commodities Is Coming Back The Time For Commodities Is Coming Back Finally, commodities plays are also set to shine in the coming decade. Commodities are very cheap and oversold relative to stocks (Chart I-36). Commodities outperform equities in an environment where inflation rises, real rates decline and the dollar depreciates. Consequently, materials and energy stocks may be winners. As a corollary, Latin American and Australian equities should also reverse their decade-long underperformance when inflation and the dollar turn the corner. This month's Section II Special Report is an in depth study of the Spanish Flu pandemic, written by our colleague Amr Hanafy and also published in BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service. Amr thoroughly analyses the evolution of the 100-year old pandemic and which measures mattered most to contain the virus and allow a return to economic normality. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 28, 2020 Next Report: June 25, 2020 II. Lessons From The Spanish Flu What Can 1918/1919 Teach Us About COVID-19?   “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana – 1905 Chart II-1Coronavirus: As Contagious But Not As Deadly As Spanish Flu June 2020 June 2020 Today’s economy is very different to that of 100 years ago. Many countries then were in the middle of World War I (which ended in November 1918). The characteristics of the Spanish Flu which struck the world in 1918 and 1919 were also different to this year’s pandemic. COVID-19 is almost as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but it is much less deadly (Chart II-1). Healthcare systems and treatments today are far more advanced than those of a century ago: many people who caught Spanish flu died of complications caused by bacterial pneumonia, given the absence of antibiotics. Influenza viruses tend to mutate rapidly: the influenza virus in 1918 first mutated to become far more virulent in its second wave, and then to become much milder. Coronaviruses have a “proofreading” capacity and mutate less easily.9  Nevertheless, an analysis of the pandemic of 100 years ago provides a number of insights into the current crisis, particularly now that policymakers are easing social-distancing rules to help the economy, even at the risk of more cases and deaths. Among the lessons of 1918-1919: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) do lower mortality rates. The speed at which NPIs are implemented and the period of implementation are as important as the number of measures taken. Removing or relaxing measures too early can lead to a renewed rise in mortality rates. It is hard to compare current fiscal and monetary policies to those taken during the 1918 pandemic, since policy in both areas was already easy before the pandemic as a result of the world war. However, a severe pandemic would certainly call for a wartime-like fiscal and monetary response. The economy was negatively impacted by the pandemic in 1918-19 but, despite the shock to industrial activity and employment, the economy subsequently rebounded quickly, in a V-shaped recovery. Introduction Predicting how the economy will react to the COVID-19 pandemic is hard. Governments and policymakers face multiple uncertainties: How effective are different containment measures? Will cases and deaths rebound quickly if lockdown measures are eased? When will the coronavirus disappear? When will a vaccine be ready? With an event unprecedented in the experience of anyone alive today, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from history. For this Special Report, we attempt to draw some parallels between the current situation and the 1918-19 Spanish flu. We focus on the different containment efforts implemented, the role that fiscal and monetary policies played, the impact on markets and the economy, and whether history can throw any light on how the COVID-19 crisis might pan out. The 1918 Spanish Flu Chart II-2The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal in modern history. Soldiers returning from World War I helped spread the pandemic across the globe. The first recorded case is believed to have been in an army camp in Kansas. While there is no official count, researchers estimate that about 500 million people contracted the virus globally, with a mortality rate of between 5% and 10%. The pandemic occurred over three waves in 1918 and 1919 – the first in the spring of 1918, the second (and most deadly) in the fall of 1918, and the third in spring 1919 (Chart II-2). In the US alone, official data estimate that around 500,000 deaths (or over 25% of all deaths) in 1918 and 1919 were caused by pneumonia and influenza.10 The pandemic moved swiftly to Europe and reached Asia by mid-1918, but became more lethal only towards the end of the year (Map II-1).11 Map II-1The Spread Of Influenza Through Europe June 2020 June 2020 Initially, scientists were puzzled by the origin of the influenza and its biology. It was not until a decade later, in the early 1930s, that Richard Shope isolated the particular influenza virus from infected pigs, confirming that a virus caused the Spanish Flu, not a bacterium as most had thought. Many of those who caught this strain of influenza died as a result of their lungs filling with fluid in a severe form of pneumonia. In reporting death rates, then, it is considered best practice to include deaths from both influenza and pneumonia. The first wave had almost all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit of a highly contagious strain. Symptoms were similar and mortality rates were only slightly higher than a normal influenza. The first wave went largely unnoticed given that deaths from pneumonia were common then. US public health reports show that the disease received little attention until it reappeared in a more severe form in Boston in September 1918.12 Most countries did not begin investigating and reporting cases until the second wave was underway (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Most Countries Began Reporting Only When The Second Wave Hit June 2020 June 2020 This second wave – which was more lethal because the virus had mutated – had a unique characteristic. Unlike the typical influenza mortality curve – which is usually “U” shaped, affecting mainly the very young and elderly – the 1918 influenza strain had a “W”-shaped mortality curve – impacting young adults as well as old people (Chart II-4). This pattern was evident in all three waves, but most pronounced during the second wave. The reason for this was that the infection caused by the influenza became hyperactive, producing a “cytokine storm” – when mediators secreted from the immune system result in severe inflammation.13 Simply put, as the virus became virulent, the body’s immune system overworked to fight it. Younger people, with strong immune systems, suffered most from this phenomenon. Chart II-4A Unique Characteristic: Impacting Younger Adults June 2020 June 2020 By the summer of 1919, the pandemic was over, since those who had been infected had either died or recovered, therefore developing immunity. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if “herd immunity” was achieved. However, some historical accounts and research – particularly for army groups in the US and the UK – suggest that those exposed to the disease in the first mild wave were not affected during the second more severe wave.14 The failure to define the causative pathogen at the time made development of a vaccine impossible. Nevertheless, some treatments and remedies showed modest success. These varied from using a serum – obtained from people who had recovered, who therefore had antibodies against the disease – to simple symptomatic drugs and various oils and herbs. The Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) Chart II-5Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough What we today call “social distancing” showed positive effects during the 1918-19 pandemic. These included measures very similar to those applied today: school closures, isolation and quarantines, bans on some sorts of public gatherings, and more. However, there were few travel bans. The number of passengers carried during the months of the pandemic did noticeably decline though (Chart II-5). Table II-1, based on research by Hatchett, Mecher and Lipsitch, breaks down NPIs by type for 17 major US cities. Most cities implemented a wide range of interventions. But it was not only the type of NPIs implemented that made a difference, but also the speed and length of implementation. Further research by Markel, Lipman and Navarro based on 43 US cities shows that the median number of days between the first reported influenza case and the first NPI implementation was over two weeks. The median period during which various NPIs were implemented was about six weeks (Table II-2). Table II-1Measures Applied Then Are Very Similar To Those Applied Today June 2020 June 2020 Table II-2NPIs Were Implemented Only For Short Periods June 2020 June 2020 Markel, Lipman and Navarro's findings show that a rapid public-health response was an important factor in reducing the mortality rate by slowing the rate of infection, what we now refer to as “flattening the curve.” There were major differences in cities’ policies: both the speed at which they implement NPIs, and the length of the implementation period. Chart II-6 shows that: Cities that acted quickly to implement NPIs slowed the rate of infections and deaths (Chart II-6, panel 1) Cities that acted quickly had lower mortality rates from influenza and pneumonia (Chart II-6, panel 2) Cities that implemented NPIs for longer periods had fewer deaths (Chart II-6, panel 3) Chart II-7 quantifies the number of NPIs taken, the time it took to implement the measures, and the length of NPIs to gauge policy strictness. Cities with stricter enforcement had lower death rates than those with laxer measures. Chart II-6Fast Response And Longer Implementation Led To Fewer Deaths... June 2020 June 2020 Chart II-7...So Did Policy Strictness June 2020 June 2020     For example, Kansas City, less than a week after its first reported case, had implemented quarantine and isolation measures. By the second week, schools, churches, and other entertainment facilities closed. Schools reopened a month later (in early November) but quickly shut again until early January 1919. While we do not have definitive dates on when each NPI was lifted, some sort of protective measures in Kansas City were in place for almost 170 days. By contrast, Philadelphia, one of the cities hardest hit by Spanish Flu, took more than a month to implement any measures. Its tardiness meant that it reached a peak mortality rate much more quickly: in 13 days compared to 31 days for Kansas City. Even after the first reported case, the Liberty Loans Parade was still held on September 28, 1918 – with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of spectators might be vulnerable to infection.15,16 It was not until a few days later that institutions were closed and a ban on public gatherings was imposed. Many other cities also held a Liberty Loans Parade, including Pittsburgh and Washington DC, but Philadelphia’s was the deadliest. Studies also show that relaxing interventions too early could be as damaging as implementing them too late. St. Louis, for example, was quick to lift restrictions and suffered particularly badly in the second wave as a result. It later reinstated NPIs up until end of February 1919. Other cities that eased restrictions too early (San Francisco and Minneapolis, for example) also suffered from a second swift, albeit milder, increase in weekly excess death rates from pneumonia and influenza (Chart II-8). Chart II-8Relaxing Lockdown Measures Too Early Can Lead To A Second Rise In Deaths... June 2020 June 2020 Chart II-9...And So Can Highly Effective Measures June 2020 June 2020 Of course, NPIs cannot be implemented indefinitely. A recent research paper by Bootsma and Ferguson raises the point that suppressing a pandemic may not be the best strategy because it just leaves some people susceptible to infection later. They argue that highly effective social distancing measures, which allow a susceptible pool of people to reintegrate into society when the measures are lifted, are likely to lead to a resurgence in infections and fatalities in a second peak (Chart II-9).17 They suggest an optimal level of control measures to reduce R (the infection rate) to a value that makes a significant portion of the population immune once measures are lifted.  The Impact Of The Spanish Flu On The Economy And Markets How did the Spanish Flu pandemic affect the economy? Many pandemic researchers ignore the official recession identified by the NBER during the months of the pandemic (between August 1918 and March 1919).18 The reason is that most of the evidence indicates that the economic effects of the 1918-19 pandemic were short-term and relatively mild.19 Disentangling drivers of the economy is, indeed, tricky given that WW1 ended in November 1918. However, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact of the pandemic since the war had such a big impact on the economy, as well as investor and public sentiment. Various research papers support the fact that, while the pandemic did indeed have an adverse effect on the economy, NPIs did not just depress mortality rates, but also sped the post-pandemic economic recovery.20 Research by Correia, Sergio, and Luck showed that the areas most severely affected by the pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity, whereas cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively, experienced a relative increase in economic activity post the pandemic.21 Their findings are based on the increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic compared to before it (1919 versus 1914). However, note that the rise of manufacturing payrolls in 1919 was high everywhere given the return of soldiers post-WWI. The researchers also note that those cities hardest hit by the pandemic also saw a negative impact on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets. Chart II-10Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Because Spanish flu disproportionately killed younger adults, many families lost their breadwinner. In economic terms, this implies both a negative supply shock and negative demand shock. If fewer employees are available to produce a certain good, supply will fall. The same reduction in employment also implies reduced income and therefore lower purchasing power. Both cases will result in a decrease in output. However, the change in prices depends on the decline of supply relative to demand. In 1918-19, the impact was disinflationary: demand declined by more than supply, and both spending and consumer prices fell during the pandemic (Chart II-10). US factory employment fell by over 8% between March 1918 and March 1919 – the period from the beginning of the first wave until the end of the second wave. It is important to note, however, that few businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic years (Chart II-11). Additionally, the November 1918 Federal Reserve Bulletin highlighted that many cities, including New York, Kansas City, and Richmond, experienced a shortage of labor due to the influenza.22 Factory employment in New York fell by over 10% during this period. The link between the labor shortages and the decline in industrial production is unclear. Industrial activity in the US peaked just before the second wave, contracting by over 20% during the second wave (Chart II-12). Various industries reported disruptions: automobile production fell by 67%, anthracite coal production and shipments fell by around 45%, and railroad freight revenues declined by over seven billion ton-miles (Chart II-12, panels 2, 3 & 4). However, some of this decline is attributed to falling defense production after the war. Chart II-11Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Chart II-12Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly   Chart II-13The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic Chart II-14Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started The equity market moved in a broad range in 1915-1919 and fell sharply only ahead of the 1920 recession (Chart II-13). Seemingly, stock market participants were more focused on the war than the pandemic. The lack of reporting of the pandemic could have contributed to this: newspapers were encouraged to avoid carrying bad news for reasons of patriotism and did not widely cover the pandemic until late 1918.23 The Federal Reserve played an active role in funding the government’s spending on the war, and so monetary policy was very easy during the pandemic – but for other reasons. The Fed used its position as a lender to the banking system to facilitate war bond sales.16 Interest rates were cut in 1914 and 1915 even before the US entered the war. The US economy had been in recession between January 1913 and December 1914. Policy rates remained low throughout 1916 and 1917 and slightly rose in 1918 and 1919. It was not until 1920 that Federal Reserve Bank System tightened policy rapidly to choke off inflation, which accelerated to over 20% in mid-1920 – rising inflation being a common post-war phenomenon (Chart II-14). The Lessons Of 1918-19 For The Coronavirus Pandemic Non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be implemented until a vaccine, effective therapeutic drugs, or mass testing is available. Relaxing measures prematurely is as damaging as a tardy reaction to the pandemic. Reacting quickly and imposing multiple measures for longer periods not only reduces mortality rates, but also improves economic outcomes post-crisis. The economy suffers in the short-term: supply and demand shocks lead to lower output. The demand shock however is larger leading to lower prices and disinflationary pressures, at least during and immediately after the pandemic.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we maintained a positive disposition toward stocks, especially at the expense of government bonds. The global economy may be in the midst of its most severe contraction since the Great Depression, but betting against stocks is too dangerous when fiscal and monetary policy are both as easy as they are today. In essence, don’t fight the Fed. This view remains in place, even if the short-term risk/reward ratio for holding stocks is deteriorating. On a cyclical basis, the same factors that made us willing buyers of stocks remain broadly in place. Stocks are not as cheap as they were in late March, but monetary conditions have only eased further as real interest rates weakened. Additionally, our Speculation Indicator has eased, which indicates that contrary to many commentators’ perceptions, speculation is not rampant. Confirming this intuition, the equity risk premium remains elevated (even when one takes into account its lack of stationarity) and expected growth rates of earnings are still very low. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator is finally flashing a strong buy signal. Tactically, equities are still overbought. We have had four 5% or more corrections since March 23. More of them are in the cards. However, the most likely outcome for the S&P 500 this summer is a churning pattern, not a major downward move below 2700. The median stock is still 26% below its August 2018 low and only a fraction of equities on the NYSE trade above their 30-week moving average. These indicators do not scream that a major correction is on the horizon, especially when policy is as accommodative as it is today. We continue to recommend investors take advantage of the supportive backdrop for stocks by buying equities relative to bonds. In contrast to global bourses, government bonds are still massively overbought on a cyclical basis and trading at their largest premium to fair value since Q4 2008 and late 1985. Additionally, the vast sums of both monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy should lift inflation expectations and thus, bond yields. The yield curve is therefore slated to steepen further. Since we last published, the dollar has not meaningfully depreciated, but the DXY is trying to breakdown while our composite technical indicator is making lower highs. It is too early to gauge whether the recent rebound in the IDR, the MXN, or the ZAR is anything more than an oversold bounce, but if it were to continue, it would indicate that the expensive greenback is starting to buckle under the weight of the quickly expanding twin deficit. The widening in the current account deficit that will result from extraordinarily loose fiscal policy means that the large increase in money supply by the Fed will leak out of the US economy. This process is highly bearish for the dollar. Ultimately, the timing of the dollar’s weakness will all boil down to global growth. As signs are building up that global growth is bottoming, odds are rising that the dollar will finally breakdown. Get ready for a meaningful downward move over the coming months. Finally, commodities seem to be gaining traction. The Continuous Commodity Index’s A/D line is quickly moving up and our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly rising from extremely oversold levels. Oil will hold the key for the broad complex. Oil supply has started to adjust lower and oil demand is set to improve starting June/July as the global economy re-opens, fueled with massive amounts of stimulus. As a result, inventories should start to meaningfully decline this summer, which will support the recent recovery in oil prices. If oil can rebound further, industrial commodities will follow. Finally, gold is a mixed bag in the near term. The dollar is set to weaken significantly and inflation breakevens to move higher, which will mitigate the negative impact of declining risk aversion. Silver is a superior play to gold as it will benefit from a recovery in global growth. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Reid Cramer et al., The Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap, Divergent Trajectories, Weak Balance Sheets, and Implications for Social Policy, New America, Oct 2019. 2 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-normal-amid-coronavirus-working-from-home-while-schooling-the-kids-11584437400 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient," dated June 27, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "May 2020," dated April 30, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "A Few Trades Amidst A Pandemic," dated May 22, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "European Investors Left Defenceless," dated May 21, 2020, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Debunking Earnings," dated May 19, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see the Q&A with immunologist and Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, published by BCA Research April 1st 2020: BCA Research Special Report, “Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers,” available at bcaresearch.com 10 Please see “Leading Cause of Death, 1990-1998,” CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 Please see Ansart S, Pelat C, Boelle PY, Carrat F, Flahault A, Valleron AJ, “Mortality burden of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in Europe,” NCBI. 12 Please see Public Health Report, vol. 34, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1919. 13 Please see Qiang Liu, Yuan-hong Zhou, Zhan-qiu Yang Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan; 13(1): 3–10. 14 Please see Shope, R. (1958) Public Health Rep. 73, 165–178. 15 The Liberty Loans Parade was intended to promote the sale of government bonds to pay for World War One. 16 Please see Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M (2007) "Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic,"PNAS 104: 7582–7587. 17 Please see Bootsma M, Ferguson N, “The Effect Of Public Health Measures On The 1918 Influenza Pandemic In U.S. Cities,” PNAS (2007). 18 Please see https://www.nber.org/cycles.html 19 Please see https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/res…12               Please see https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/03/fight-the-pandemic-save-the-economy-lessons-from-the-1918-flu.html. 20 Please see Correia, Sergio and Luck, Stephan and Verner, Emil, Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu (March 30, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561560 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560. 21 Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- and Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1935. "November 1918," Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1918). 22 Please see https://newrepublic.com/article/157094/americas-newspapers-covered-pandemic. 23 Please see https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_role_during_wwi.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The Fed’s extremely easy monetary backdrop along with easy fiscal policy remain the dominant macro themes, and they will continue to underpin the equity market. We remain constructive on the equity market’s prospects on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. While the path of least resistance remains higher for the S&P biotech index, we do not want to overstate our welcome and are putting it on downgrade alert and instituting a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. Relative supply/demand dynamics, social distancing, the pendulum swinging from renting to owing and enticing relative technicals and valuations, all signal that a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade is primed to generate alpha.   Recent Changes Initiate a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P real estate trade, today. Table 1 There's No Limit There's No Limit Feature The SPX had a bumper week last week, but failed to pierce through the 200-day moving average. A flare up in the US/China trade war, a barrage of positive coronavirus vaccine news and Jay Powell’s 60 minutes interview brought back some volatility in trading, however, the VIX remains in a steady downturn. Importantly, investors are nowhere near as complacent as during the 2018/19 or early 2020 SPX peaks, judging by VIX futures positioning (net speculative positions shown inverted, Chart 1). Chart 1Positioning Is Far... Positioning Is Far... Positioning Is Far... In other words, there is still room for equities to rise before sentiment reaches greedy levels. A number of other indicators we track confirm that recent SPX trading is associated more with panic than with euphoria. Namely, Chart 2 shows that our Complacency-Anxiety, Capitulation and Equity Sentiment Indicators, all corroborate that investor confidence is far from previous exuberant peaks, and signal that there is scope for additional equity gains on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon.  Delving deeper into investor psyche, our sense is that there are three distinct camps of investors at the current juncture, two of which are fiercely battling it out in the stock market. Chart 2…From Complacent …From Complacent …From Complacent First there are the pessimists that we call “second wavers” that are more often than not also “Fed non-believers” or “Fed fighters”. They argue that stocks are extremely expensive and if a second wave of the corona virus hits, then stocks are going to plunge anew given the lack of a valuation cushion, as all the money in the world (Fed QE5) cannot cure the virus (top panel, Chart 3). Second, there are the optimists that are hopeful that a vaccine/drug cocktail discovery is looming to effectively eradicate the coronavirus. These investors also believe in the smooth reopening of the economy. But, even if there were a second wave, their thinking goes that our societies/governments/health care systems are all going to be more prepared and effective to deal with a second viral outbreak in the fall. In addition, they are in the “do not fight the Fed” camp. Finally, there are the more moderate investors that lie somewhere in between these two camps. They sat tight and held on to their stock positions during the 36% peak-to-trough SPX drawdown and have likely been on the sidelines lately (bottom panel, Chart 3) awaiting a catalyst to either deploy fresh capital or raise some cash. We are in the more optimistic camp and while a vaccine may be months away, we will have to figure out a way as a society to more effectively protect the elderly that are most at risk from the virus and continue to live on, as we first posited in the March 23rd Weekly Report when we outlined 20 reasons to buy stocks and reprint here: "20. Social-distancing measures in the West will ultimately break the Epidemic Curve first derivative and arrest the panic. Even if COVID-19 comes back in force, the fact is that most of the patients who succumb to it are elderly. In Italy, the average age of death is 80 years old. As such, the final circuit-breaker ahead of a GFC would be desensitization by the population, as selective quarantines – targeting the elderly cohorts – get implemented in order to allow other people to return to work. Furthermore, two “silver bullet” solutions remain as tail risks to the bearish narrative. First, a biotech or pharmaceutical company may make a breakthrough in the fight against COVID-19. Not necessarily a vaccine, but a treatment. Finally, upcoming warm weather in the northern hemisphere may also help the fight against the virus."1 Chart 3Cash Hoarding Is Associated With Market Troughs Cash Hoarding Is Associated With Market Troughs Cash Hoarding Is Associated With Market Troughs Chart 4Loose Monetary Policy… Loose Monetary Policy… Loose Monetary Policy… Moreover, we definitely refrain from fighting the Fed as we outlined in our recent “Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril” Weekly Report2 and reiterate that view today (Chart 4). While some investors were surprised by Jay Powell’s 60 Minutes interview remarks on the way the Fed digitally creates money, Ben Bernanke in another 60 Minutes interview in March 20093 made a similar comment that we cited in our March 23 Weekly Report (please refer to reason number 6 to buy equities).4 Importantly, we felt that Jay Powell’s demeanor was more like “please test our resolve Mr. Market if you reckon the FOMC is out of ammunition”. As a reminder, the Fed is in a position of strength: devaluing a currency is easy, revaluing/defending a currency is difficult and at times impossible as FX (and gold) reserves eventually run dry. In sum, the Fed’s extremely easy monetary backdrop along with easy fiscal policy (Chart 5) remain the dominant macro themes, and they will continue to underpin the equity market. Eventually, a liquidity handoff to growth will take root, and the SPX will no longer require the immense fiscal and monetary supports. As a result we continue to believe that stocks will be higher in the coming 9-12 months. Chart 5…And Easy Fiscal Policy Are Underpinning Stocks …And Easy Fiscal Policy Are Underpinning Stocks …And Easy Fiscal Policy Are Underpinning Stocks Biotech Delivers We have been overweight the S&P biotech index and adding alpha to our portfolio in the double digits, however we do not want to overstate our welcome and are putting it on downgrade alert and instituting a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. While a few technology sectors and subsectors have come close to vaulting to fresh all-time highs, none other than the S&P biotech index has managed such an impressive feat. The stealthy advance in biotech stocks has been earnings driven and is not only confined to the narrow based Big-Pharma lookalike S&P biotech index (Chart 6). The broader-based NASDAQ biotech index comprising 209 stocks has also quietly sprang to uncharted territory. True, relative share prices have yet to make the all-time high leap, but have bested the market roughly by 30% year-to-date irrespective of the biotech index or ETF tracked (Chart 6). Importantly, growth stocks in general and biotech stocks in particular perform exceptionally well in a disinflationary growth environment. Therefore biotech stocks are the primary beneficiaries of the Fed’s QE5 and NIRP policies at a time when inflation is missing in action (top panel, Chart 7). Chart 6Earnings-Led Advance Earnings-Led Advance Earnings-Led Advance This goldilocks backdrop is also evident in the US bank credit impulse that has gone parabolic. When there is flushing liquidity and growth is scarce and declining, investors flock to any growth they can get their hands on (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Goldilocks Backdrop Goldilocks Backdrop Goldilocks Backdrop US dollar based liquidity, also underpins biotech stocks. In recent research, we have been highlighting that the Fed is indirectly targeting the debasing of the greenback. All this excess US dollar liquidity will eventually boost global growth, and reflate corporate earnings via the export relief valve. Biotech stocks will also get a fillip from a depreciating US dollar (Chart 8). Our overweight thesis in biotech was predicated – among other things – upon Big Pharma taking out biotech players and acquiring their coveted drug pipelines. We continue to side with the potential M&A targets, rather than the acquirers. The number of industry M&A deals has reached fever pitch and deal premia are still averaging over 60% (Chart 9). Chart 8Dollar Flooding Is A Boon For Biotech Equities Dollar Flooding Is A Boon For Biotech Equities Dollar Flooding Is A Boon For Biotech Equities Currently, the global race to find a coronavirus vaccine has further propelled biotech stocks. Indeed, investors are voting with their feet and are betting on a vaccine breakthrough. Thus, the allure of biotech stocks has also increased a notch as the possibility of a vaccine makes their earnings streams even more valuable and desirable to Big Pharma. A mega M&A deal in the space would not take us by surprise. Chart 9M&A Activity Will Remain Robust M&A Activity Will Remain Robust M&A Activity Will Remain Robust A few words are in order on the earnings, valuation and technical fronts. While relative share price momentum is galloping higher, it is moving in lockstep with rising earnings estimates (second panel, Chart 10). We would be extremely concerned if this were a multiple expansion driven relative share price advance. In fact, the biotech forward P/E trades both below the historical mean and at a 39% discount to the broad market hovering near an all-time low (Chart 10). Even on a dividend yield basis, biotech stocks are cheap sporting a higher (and safer) dividend yield than the SPX (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 10Biotech Stocks Are As Cheap As They Have Ever Been Biotech Stocks Are As Cheap As They Have Ever Been Biotech Stocks Are As Cheap As They Have Ever Been Chart 11Earnings Hurdle Remains Low Earnings Hurdle Remains Low Earnings Hurdle Remains Low Finally, relative long-term profit growth euphoria reaching astronomical levels, preceded previous S&P biotech index peaks: three times in the past two decades biotech stocks were projected to surpass SPX profit growth by roughly 10%. The current reading has plunged to negative 1.2% (Chart 11). Netting it all out, the global race for a coronavirus vaccine, robust earnings growth, ample US dollar liquidity and generationally low interest rates suggest that the path of least resistance remains higher for the S&P biotech index.   Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P biotech index, but put it on downgrade alert and set a 5% rolling stop in order to protect profits. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BIOT – ABBV, ALXN, AMGN, BIIB, GILD, INCY, REGN, VRTX. Intra-Real Estate Trade Idea There is an exploitable trade opportunity in the real estate market, preferring residential real estate to commercial real estate (CRE). The cleanest way to play this is via a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade, and we recommend initiating such a market-neutral trade today. Relative performance remains below the upward sloping time trend and at least a mini overshoot phase is in the cards in the coming quarters (Chart 12). One of the key drivers for this pair trade is the ebb and flow of owning versus renting and the current message is positive for homebuilders at the expense of REITs (Chart 13). Chart 12Looming Overshoot Phase Looming Overshoot Phase Looming Overshoot Phase Chart 13Own Versus Rent Upswing Is Bullish For The Pair Trade Own Versus Rent Upswing Is Bullish For The Pair Trade Own Versus Rent Upswing Is Bullish For The Pair Trade Home ownership has suffered a setback and never reclaimed its pre GFC highs. However, there is pent up demand for single family homes, especially given the recent drubbing of interest rates which should bring first time home buyers back into the market. Millennials up to now have been more of a renter generation, but as household formation increases for the largest cohort in the US, homeownership will make a comeback. One can argue that both real estate segments are interest rate sensitive and that they should benefit from lower rates. However, banks are more willing to lend to consumers in order to buy a home rather than to investors for CRE properties/projects by a factor of 2:1 according to the latest Federal Reserve Senior Loan Officer survey.5 Similarly, whereas demand for CRE loans has collapsed according to the same survey in April, demand for residential real estate loans spiked (top panel, Chart 14). In times of coronavirus-induced social distancing there is a lot more risk associated with CRE versus residential properties. Apartment REITs for example have an element of density-related risk versus the allure of a single family home in the suburbs. Likely social distancing will place a premium on single family homes in coming quarters at the expense of living in high rises in the city. This backdrop bodes well for home prices, but ill for CRE prices which according to Green Street Advisors contracted by 9% in April.6 Keep in mind that residential real estate price only very recently surpassed their 2006 zenith whereas CRE price are still hovering at one standard deviation above the previous peak (Chart 14). Debt deflation is a real threat for CRE prices and given that REITs are at the bottom of this levered asset’s capital structure it is last to collect.  Also the long-term ramifications to demand on CRE are grave compared with residential real estate. On the office REIT segment as an example, we deem that corporations will rethink their often expensive downtown office space requirements and likely downsize, as working from home has become mainstream. The unintended consequence of this realization is that demand for (larger) single family homes will also increase as workers opt to set up more comfortable working spaces at suburban homes. Chart 14Homebuilders Have The Upper Hand Homebuilders Have The Upper Hand Homebuilders Have The Upper Hand Shopping mall REITs are under relentless attack from the Amazonification of the economy and now have to contend with social distancing. The retail shopping experience will never be the same again sustaining the threat of extinction for shopping centers. On the construction front, single family housing starts are breaking ground at the historical mean and way below the 2006 peak run-rate, however, multi-family supply has gone parabolic (Chart 15). These diverging supply conditions are a harbinger of rising relative share prices. Finally, with regard to technicals and valuations homebuilders have the upper hand. Our Technical Indicator is in the neutral zone and relative valuations have collapsed near all-time lows offering a compelling entry point to the pair trade (Chart 16). Chart 15Supply Dynamics Favor Homebuilders Supply Dynamics Favor Homebuilders Supply Dynamics Favor Homebuilders Chart 16Relative Pessimism Is Contrarily Positive Relative Pessimism Is Contrarily Positive Relative Pessimism Is Contrarily Positive Netting it all out, relative supply and demand dynamics, social distancing, the pendulum swinging from renting to owing and enticing relative technicals and valuations, all signal that a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade is primed to generate alpha.  Bottom Line: Initiate a long S&P homebuilders/short S&P REITs pair trade today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P homebuilding and S&P REITs indexes are: BLBG: S5HOME – LEN, PHM, NVR, DHI, and BLBG: S5REITS – AMT, PLD, CCI, EQIX, DLR, SBAC, PSA, AVB, EQR, WELL, ARE, O, SPG, ESS, WY, MAA, VTR, DRE, PEAK, BXP, EXR, UDR, HST, REG, IRM, VNO, FRT, AIV, KIM, SLG, respectively.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn” dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril” dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-bernankes-greatest-challenge/2/ 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn” dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5    https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos/sloos-202004.htm 6    https://www.greenstreetadvisors.com/insights/CPPI             Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations There's No Limit There's No Limit Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth May 10, 2018 Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%) June 11, 2018 Long the BCA  Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).

Highlights Economic conditions are quite bad, … : Stay-at-home orders have decimated economic activity, giving rise to massive layoffs. … but policy makers embarked on a mighty initial effort to limit the longer-run effects: Mixing emergency GFC programs with bold new initiatives, the Fed has kept markets functioning and restrained defaults. Congress did its part with the CARES Act, opening the fiscal taps full blast to ease the burden on struggling households and businesses. Now the key question is if they’ll have the stomach to do more: Several businesses will not reopen, and it will be some time before nonfarm payrolls regain their peak. Successive waves of monetary and fiscal accommodation may be required to prevent longer-term scarring. Feature If we could have just one data series to assess the health of the economy, we would choose the monthly employment situation report. Though employment is only a coincident indicator, it is a powerfully self-reinforcing series, influencing consumption (Chart 1), fixed investment and future hiring. The unemployment rate also drives most household credit performance models, thereby influencing banks’ willingness to make auto, credit card and mortgage loans. The ripple effects of job losses can lead to a broader tightening of financial conditions, exacerbating downturns. Chart 1As Goes Employment, So Goes Consumption As Goes Employment, So Goes Consumption As Goes Employment, So Goes Consumption The April release was grim. The headline unemployment rate leaped by ten percentage points to 14.7%, its highest level since the Depression, but it failed to convey the full picture. With greater than 2% of the labor force having been laid off in each of the two weeks following the survey cut-off date, we estimate that the unemployment rate at the end of April was another four percentage points higher. There is a sizable gap between the 38.6 million workers who have filed for unemployment since mid-March and the 17.3 million newly unemployed captured in the March and April household surveys. The labor market data will get worse before it gets better, and we assume that the unemployment rate will peak above 20%. Astonishing numbers of jobs have been lost in the blink of an eye.  To avoid getting caught up in the unemployment rate’s technicalities, we are focusing on the change in employment. The establishment survey’s nonfarm payrolls series1 shrank by 21 million in March and April, or 14% from its February peak. To put the current episode into context, the 6.3% peak-to-trough decline in payrolls that played out over 25 months from February 2008 through February 2010 was previously the worst of the postwar era, dwarfing the typical recessionary payroll contraction of 1.5-3% (Chart 2). Chart 2Payrolls Have Never Shrunk Anything Like This Before Fingers In The Dike Fingers In The Dike Readers who’ve had their fill of the word “unprecedented” can call the employment contraction breathtaking. One mitigating factor, cited by economists inside and outside of the Fed, is that four-fifths of the layoffs have been characterized as temporary (Chart 3). That is certainly a positive, and we don’t doubt that nearly all bars, restaurants, gyms, hotels and concert venues would like to reopen. They surely planned to when stay-at-home orders were initially implemented, but things have changed over the ensuing ten weeks, and a new research paper suggests that only about three-fifths of laid-off workers will be recalled.2 Chart 3Nearly Every Laid-Off Worker Expects To Be Recalled Nearly Every Laid-Off Worker Expects To Be Recalled Nearly Every Laid-Off Worker Expects To Be Recalled For most of the postwar era, it took about 18 to 24 months for employment to recover its pre-recession peak. With the onset of the twenty-first century’s “jobless recoveries,” however, employment has rebounded much more slowly across cycles. After the dot-com bust and the global financial crisis, it took four and six years, respectively, to make new highs (Chart 4). The combination of manufacturing outsourcing and the ongoing automation of white-collar tasks is likely to make the slower pace of employment recovery the rule. Investors should anticipate that unemployment will linger at elevated levels through 2021 even in the event of an optimistic scenario. Chart 4Employment Doesn't Rebound Like It Used To Fingers In The Dike Fingers In The Dike Congress Versus The Data When employment falls, the virtuous circle in which changes in employment feed into further changes in employment becomes a vicious circle. Falling employment doesn’t just directly weigh on activity via less consumption and fixed investment; it also leads to reduced credit availability via tighter lending standards. With COVID-19 looming as a massive shock to consumer credit performance, Congress rushed to prop up the income streams of households in harm’s way. It began by sending $1,200 checks to more than 60% of taxpayers (single filers with less than $75,000 of adjusted gross income, and married couples with less than $150,000). One-off $1,200 payments could help strapped households, but the CARES Act’s more significant measure provided for a weekly $600 supplement to state unemployment benefits through the end of July. Weekly state-level benefits average about $400. When coupled with the federal supplement, unemployed workers will receive around $1,000 per week, slightly above the average weekly wage. After applying the stimulus check, the average worker will earn 10% more over his/her first three months of joblessness than s/he did when working full time. Why leave the couch when sitting in front of the TV is more lucrative than venturing outside? The Fed is deliberately aiming to keep households and businesses from defaulting. The direct payments3 and the supplemental unemployment benefits could prevent spending from falling, and consumer loan performance from weakening, as much as they otherwise would given the scale of layoffs. The Department of Labor has tracked the share of the average worker’s income that is replaced by unemployment benefits (the replacement rate) since the late nineties. During the two recessions covered by that sample period, laid-off workers received benefits amounting to just 40% of their previous income (Chart 5). Not surprisingly, consumer loan defaults surged (Chart 6). We are hopeful that credit performance through July, the expiration date of the supplemental benefit program, will be much better than simple regression analyses based on the unemployment rate would project, leaving ample room for a positive surprise. Chart 5Unemployment Benefits Typically Replace Just 40% Of Average Income ... Unemployment Benefits Typically Replace Just 40% Of Average Income ... Unemployment Benefits Typically Replace Just 40% Of Average Income ... Chart 6... But Consumer Borrowers Might Be Able To Stay Current When They Exceed It ... But Consumer Borrowers Might Be Able To Stay Current When They Exceed It ... But Consumer Borrowers Might Be Able To Stay Current When They Exceed It Powell Versus The Data In his 60 Minutes interview broadcast on May 17th, Fed Chair Jay Powell repeatedly indicated that the Fed is also pursuing a finger-in-the-dike strategy. Early in the interview, after lamenting the seriousness of the COVID-19 shock, he noted, “the good news is that we have policies that can go some way toward minimizing those [hysteresis-like] effects. And that’s by keeping people and businesses out of insolvency just for maybe three or six more months while the health authorities do what they can do. We can buy time with that.” He came back to the short-term-stimulus-to-prevent-long-term-impairment theme toward the end, explicitly referencing credit performance. “[W]e have tools to try to minimize the longer-run damage to the supply side of the economy. And these tools just involve keeping people solvent, keeping them in their homes, keeping them paying their bills just for maybe a few more months. And the same thing with businesses. Keeping them away from Chapter 11 if it’s available.” It seems reasonable to assume that the worst of the public health news will have passed by the fall. If employment were to rebound in line with re-opening measures, six months of active fiscal and monetary support, from March to September, ought to be enough to stave off long-run damage. As the massive scale of the job losses is revealed, however, we are beginning to rethink our own assumptions about when the economy will truly be able to stand on its own. As Chart 4 suggests, it may be unrealistic to think that the US can return to full employment by 2022, especially as the lockdowns may have given businesses lots of ideas about where they can permanently reduce headcount. The Fed is prepared for such a contingency, to hear the Chair tell it: It may well be that the Fed has to do more. It may be that Congress has to do more. And the reason we’ve got to do more is to avoid longer-run damage to the economy. [W]e’re not out of ammunition by a long shot. No, there’s really no limit to what we can do with these lending programs that we have. So there’s a lot more we can do to support the economy, and we’re committed to doing everything we can as long as we need to. Powell’s take did not come as news to markets, even if it helped stocks romp higher the day after the interview was broadcast. The Fed moved with dizzying speed in March, and its measures have been effective. Taking the corporate bond market as an example, spreads narrowed sharply after the primary- and secondary-market corporate credit facilities were announced on March 23rd (Chart 7) and have fallen to a level consistent with a run-of-the-mill recession (Chart 8). Corporate bond issuance set an all-time monthly record in March, then broke it in April, all without the Fed buying a single bond until mid-May. Chart 7The Fed Tamed The Corporate Bond Market Without Firing A Shot ... The Fed Tamed The Corporate Bond Market Without Firing A Shot ... The Fed Tamed The Corporate Bond Market Without Firing A Shot ... Chart 8... And Spreads Are Now At Levels Consistent With A Ho-Hum Recession ... And Spreads Are Now At Levels Consistent With A Ho-Hum Recession ... And Spreads Are Now At Levels Consistent With A Ho-Hum Recession Investment Implications Investors can count on the Fed’s whatever-it-takes pledge, but they shouldn’t expect the Fed to defend the economy from monumental job losses all by itself. States, cities and towns need cash grants to avoid laying off wide swaths of their workforces, and only Congress and the administration can issue them. Despite their public wavering, we do not think that Republicans will want to spurn masses of unemployed voters and their teachers, police and firefighters ahead of the election. Bailout fatigue and deficit worries will make succeeding iterations of aid packages less generous, though. A wave of defaults and business failures would complicate the near-term recovery playbook. Independent of longer-run effects, financial markets will fare better over the next year if fiscal and monetary policy continue to focus on limiting avoidable busts. We think they will, however begrudgingly, but financial markets already discount this benign outcome. Jay Powell is singing the SIFI banks' song. The combination of Fed support and low valuations makes them especially attractive. Relentlessly accentuating the positive leaves risk assets vulnerable in the near term. We continue to expect some sort of an equity correction and have no appetite for anything but the BB-rated top tier of high yield corporates. Over the tactical 0-to-3-month timeframe, we continue to recommend that multi-asset investors maintain a benchmark equity weighting, while underweighting bonds and overweighting cash. We recommend overweighting equities, underweighting bonds and equal-weighting cash over the cyclical 3-to-12-month timeframe. Within bonds, we are underweight Treasuries and high yield, and overweight investment grade, over both timeframes. The SIFI banks will benefit most directly if policymakers are able to limit consumer and business defaults. Chair Powell’s 60 Minutes refrain should have been music to their management teams’ and stockholders’ ears. They are the rare prominent segment of the market that is viewing the glass as half-empty. Investors have a considerable margin of safety buying them at or near their book value and they continue to be our favorite long idea.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The employment situation report is compiled from a survey of households (used to calculate the size of the labor force and the unemployment rate) and a survey of business establishments (used to calculate net employment gains, hours worked and earnings). The foregoing unemployment discussion referenced the household survey; the subsequent discussion and charts reference the establishment survey. 2 Barrero, Jose Maria, Nicholas Bloom and Steven J. Davis, 2020. "COVID-19 Is Also a Reallocation Shock," NBER Working Paper No. 27137. Accessed May 21, 2020. Using historical data samples analyzed by other researchers, and the responses to the Survey of Business Uncertainty, the authors estimate that only 58% of pandemic-induced layoffs will prove to be temporary. 3 Another round of direct payments is being debated on Capitol Hill as we go to press.

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