Disasters/Disease

WTI crude oil delivered to Cushing in May 2020 is trading below $0.00/bbl as this note is typed, and falling fast (Chart 1). This is an historical print. WTI for June delivery is trading at ~ $22.00/bbl. What we are observing is the last of the May 2020 futures longs getting out of their positions before the contract goes off the board tomorrow. People tend to forget that the so-called WTI "paper" market – i.e., futures – is actually a market in which contracts for physical delivery at Cushing, OK, actually change hands. If you are left long when the contract for May delivery stop trading – tomorrow at the close of business – you will have to stand for physical delivery. If you are short, you must deliver physical barrels. These are binding, legal contracts. Chart 1Crude Oil In Extremis Crude Oil In Extremis Crude Oil In Extremis Liquidity is extremely low, as most everyone with any exposure in May 2020 WTI is out of their position. Storage is scarce. Anyone with storage can name their price – literally – as most of the storage in Cushing obviously is close to being full. Refiners are drastically reducing runs, and refined products are sitting in storage, as the US remains in shut-down. What we are observing is the physical market pricing a near-complete lack of storage in Cushing. Physical-market participants also are aware there’s 12mm barrels of crude from Saudi Arabia arriving in the US Gulf, following KSA’s chartering of 19 very large crude carriers (VLCCs) in March, six of which are bound for the US Gulf. There is no place to store the crude that’s going to be arriving in the Gulf and that’s backed up in Cushing. This situation should begin to reverse on May 1, as the COVID-19 demand destruction levels off and the global economy starts to return to normal. On the supply side, the OPEC 2.0 producers begin cutting production next month, and highly levered unhedged producers will be forced to shut in production and file for bankruptcy. The lower prices go in the short term – and the more damage this causes on the production side – the sharper the recovery later this year.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com  

Highlights Over the past year we have discussed “peak polarization” for the United States with many clients. We have held the contrarian view that political animosities within the US are nearing their peak. Feature Prior to COVID-19 we argued that polarization would either peak this year, with the US election, or in roughly two years – a scenario in which President Donald Trump won reelection and an epic partisan battle ensued with House Democrats over his second-term policy priority (probably the southern border wall). The global pandemic and recession have changed things. They are accelerating the peaking process, as a domestic consensus is forming on Big Government, border controls, and protectionism against China. It is also less likely that President Trump will scrape through with a narrow victory in November – rather, he will win or lose decisively. Policy consensus and a decisive electoral outcome should reduce polarization in the coming years. The risk to this view is that President Trump is reelected for a second time without a majority of the popular vote and then attempts major cuts to social spending to correct the country’s gargantuan budget deficits. This risk is vastly overrated. A corollary of our view is that US polarization will hit a boiling point in this election year. Polarization will remain extreme until the election results are confirmed, settled, and done. The conflict between Trump and the Democratic governors over when to reopen the virus-plagued economy is case in point. For investors, this view implies that, in the very near term, the dollar and global safe-haven flows will remain strong, defensive plays have further to run, and US equities will continue to outperform global. But over the long run, the dollar is already at extreme highs and global equities outside the US offer better value. The COVID Confederacy When we chose our theme for this year’s presidential election, “Civil War Lite,” we argued that the US faced a host of social and political challenges that would come to head by November 3. These challenges could manifest in violent social unrest or in an electoral or constitutional crisis that harmed government legitimacy. We did not expect COVID-19, but it has created exactly what our Civil War Lite theme implies: a clash between federal and state governments over who has the final say in the American system. Specifically, the Democratic-led states on the east and west coast are quarreling with the Trump administration over how and when to reopen their economies in the wake of tough “shelter in place” measures that have ground the economy to a halt in order to stem the pandemic. For the first time since the great realignment of US politics in the 1930s, the US is having an historic nationwide crisis in which the Republicans are asserting an overriding federal government and the Democrats are insisting on states’ rights. United States governors have formed two coalitions to determine when and how to reopen. On the West Coast, California Governor Gavin Newsom joined with the governors of Oregon and Washington states to set up a working group. On the East Coast – the epicenter of the pandemic in the US – Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, joined with his counterparts from New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania to set up a similar working group. Governor Cuomo fought a war of words with President Trump over who has the authority to invoke and revoke emergency health and security actions. President Trump declared, “When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total.” Cuomo rebuked him by saying, “we have a constitution … we don’t have a king.” Trump replied by suggesting that Cuomo and his fellow governors were engaging in “mutiny” and implied that he could use his enormous powers and funds as head of the federal government to decide the conflict. The conflict between President Trump and the “COVID Confederacy” heightens uncertainty in the near term. All parties have since softened their tone. Cuomo said he did not want confrontation, President Trump said that he would “authorize” all fifty governors to reopen their economies, and Newsom asserted his executive authority over California without addressing Trump’s comments directly. This conflict may be overrated from the point of view of long-term American stability – President Trump is not about to impose a naval blockade like Abraham Lincoln. But it is not overrated in the near term for financial markets. That is because the reopening plan remains undecided. The “COVID Confederacy,” as we facetiously call it, makes up a combined 38% of US gross domestic product (Table 1), which is shown here in our flow-based cartogram of the United States (Map 1). Each state is colored red or blue according to its Republican or Democratic Party Electoral College vote in 2016, and it is sized proportionally to its economic output. Map 1The COVID Confederacy: States That May Break With Federal Government Over Quarantines US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization Table 1The COVID Confederacy As Share Of GDP US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization We think this conflict matters because it heightens the uncertainty over the duration of quarantine measures, and hence the sufficiency of fiscal stimulus and the length of time until economic normalization. Markets do not like uncertainty. Second, the conflict could still escalate, given that President Trump could still try to push for an earlier economic opening than the Blue States are ready for. Third, even assuming that all sides recognize they need to cooperate amid crisis, the US election still hangs in the balance and the decision to open the economy will increase the death count and thus hypercharge the political contest. Bottom Line: We expect US politics to weigh on US and hence global equities in the near term, as they have already rallied by 24% since their trough in March. When And How Will The US Reopen? How will Trump’s conflict with the Democratic governors be resolved? President Trump is in an impossible situation. Reopening the economy earlier will lead to an increase in deaths – the US will move toward or past Sweden in Chart 1. This is in an election environment in which each death will be heavily politicized while the dangers of deeper recession will be more abstract. Not reopening the economy will add to the US’s historic losses in employment, production, and retail sales (Chart 2). Chart 1Reopening Will Improve Economy But Increase Deaths Per Million US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization Chart 2Delayed Reopening Will Weigh On Stocks Delayed Reopening Will Weigh On Stocks Delayed Reopening Will Weigh On Stocks Even in the best-case scenario, in which the economy starts to reopen in May, mitigation efforts succeed, and deaths are limited, Trump will still be left with large-scale unemployment and recession. Historically unemployment is the best indicator for which direction the president’s approval will ultimately go (Chart 3). And bear in mind that interior Republican states will be at risk of subsequent outbreaks because they are on a later time frame for the virus peak and yet are most likely to comply with Trump’s reopening plan. The implication is that Trump is constrained and will ultimately decide to maintain the lockdowns longer than he is implying (May 1), and longer than the market expects. He would not want to be seen as losing the fight to the virus. As we go to press, Trump is finalizing “Opening Up America Again” guidelines. Leaving decisions to governors could mean accepting longer lockdowns. Chart 3AUnemployment Rate Leads The Way For Presidents Unemployment Rate Leads The Way For Presidents Unemployment Rate Leads The Way For Presidents Chart 3BUnemployment Rate Leads The Way For Presidents Unemployment Rate Leads The Way For Presidents Unemployment Rate Leads The Way For Presidents Meanwhile the Democratic governors who make up the COVID confederacy have a perverse incentive to hold out longer in maintaining strict social distancing. If they reopen too soon, deaths go up and they suffer the political consequences. Yet in normalizing the economy they risk helping Trump get reelected. To be sure, the governors cannot cut off their own economies to spite Trump. But they can continue to drag their feet. First, to show that they are “more competent” leaders who “rely on science” and thus ensure that Trump takes the blame for the increase in deaths. Second, because Trump’s declaration of “total authority” forces them to defend their power and prerogative as governors – this is a constitutional constraint on President Trump. A major problem for Trump is that, unlike Abraham Lincoln, he is asserting total authority over the states not to fight and win the war (in this case, against the virus), but to ease the recession. This is a risky position because subsequent outbreaks will hurt him. Public opinion polling suggests that 64% of voters think the government should prioritize fighting the virus while 29% think it should prioritize rebooting the economy – and this split is 51% versus 43% among Republicans (Chart 4). Chart 4Voters More Afraid Of Virus Than Recession US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization Business leaders at the first meeting of Trump’s “Great American Economic Revival Industry Groups” testified that premature opening is counterproductive if virus testing is inadequate. It is risky for their employees, threatens dire legal consequences down the road, and may need to be reversed. To be sure, economic pressure will change voters’ and business leaders’ minds eventually. The Democratic governors will capitulate as demand for loosening grows. They may be bickering over a one or two week difference in reopening timelines. Testing is improving markedly, and New York is on track to be much better equipped to handle the required testing in the month of May. Still, there is a great risk that the governors delay at least two weeks beyond Trump’s timeline. And a two-week delay with these states costs, at minimum, $237 billion, or 3% of their GDP this year. There is also a risk that the dispute escalates and Trump resorts to coercion to pressure the states to reopen sooner, creating more uncertainty. If the federal government loosens guidance and Trump uses the “bully pulpit” to speed up reopening, the overall effectiveness of the state lockdowns will decline. This could cause the governors to tighten controls before they loosen them, or it could even cause the federal government to reverse course. House Democrats have cooperated on fiscal stimulus (see Appendix) with President Trump and Senate Republicans because they would not dare delay relief for households merely to undermine the president. But the political logic works differently for Democratic state governors when it comes to reopening the economy – they benefit politically from saving lives and opposing President Trump. Bottom Line: Ultimately the COVID confederacy of Democratic states will suffer immense pressure to reopen, so their contest with Trump may only amount to one or two weeks’ difference. But this “Civil War Lite” can get worse before it gets better. Investors face rising uncertainty over the coming month over the pace and extent of US reopening. Peak Polarization Chart 5Why We Called 2020 ‘Civil War Lite’ US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization We chose our election theme because of the extreme levels of polarization in US politics. These will come to a head with the November 3, 2020 general election. It cannot be overstated that today’s polarization is empirically extreme – this is not subjective. Our quantitative election model shows that more and more states have a near-certain probability of sending their Electoral College votes to the party they already favor – meaning that these states are uncompetitive in the election due to the fixed opinion of voters (Chart 5, top panel). The difference in Republican and Democratic approval of the president is soaring far above the high points of the past forty years (Chart 5, bottom panel), a very simple sign of polarization. The most rigorous measure of polarization in American political science shows that polarization is the highest since the Civil War in the 1860s (a time when these data lose applicability). It is comparable to the Reconstruction era in the 1870s and the populist era in the early 1900s (Chart 6). Our quantitative model relies on leading economic indicators as of February and thus still gives President Trump victories in New Hampshire and Wisconsin. It predicts him winning the White House with 273 Electoral College votes, only a three-seat margin over the required 270 to win the Oval Office.1 The economic collapse will hurt his odds as data come in, as is clear when we “shock” our model with a 2008-sized slowdown (Chart 7). Chart 6US Polarization The Highest Since The Civil War US Polarization The Highest Since The Civil War US Polarization The Highest Since The Civil War Chart 7Our US Election Quant Model Shows A Tight Race US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization The clearest and simplest sign of polarization is the long-term decline in presidential approval ratings and increase in disapproval ratings. Approval has not hit the low point, when George W. Bush presided over a financial meltdown on top of a foreign military quagmire, but it is near Truman and Nixon-era lows (Chart 8A). Chart 8AA Very Simple View Of US Political Polarization US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization The lesson from this last chart is that Americans most approve of their presidents during times of prosperity at home and peace abroad, such as the late 1950s and early 1960s, the late 1980s (as the Soviets collapsed), and the late 1990s, during the post-Cold War “peace dividend.” Yet Trump’s first three years in office, despite peace and prosperity, did not witness a huge increase in approval. Extreme polarization will come to a head with the November election. Disapproval is even more telling. Historically, the disapproval rating peaks at a crisis point and then dramatically subsides – with a series of lower and lower peaks – in the subsequent years. This was true after the Korean War and Truman administration scandals, the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation, and the first Iraq war and 1990-91 recession. But in the case of the Great Recession, polarization only briefly declined before it rapidly began mounting again, reaching a post-2008 peak under President Trump (Chart 8B). Chart 8BA Very Simple View Of US Political Polarization US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization The last point suggests that the US was building toward a new crisis point and COVID-19 has created that moment. The question is whether Trump’s approval ultimately goes up or down as a result, and whether the nation bands together in the wake of the election as it did after past crisis elections (e.g. 1932, 1952, 1968, 1976). House Democrats and Republicans have cooperated on stimulus packages, as mentioned, but this cooperation will give way to cut-throat competition as the acute crisis subsides and the election approaches. Bottom Line: US polarization is historically extreme and will intensify ahead of the election. Election And Reconstruction Prior to COVID there were three main scenarios for polarization to escalate further in the 2020-22 period: Trump Narrowly Reelected: It is inherently rare for a president to win the Electoral College vote without winning the popular vote. It happened in 2000 and 2016, marking the polarized times. If it happened again it could easily be accompanied with vote recounts or Supreme Court intervention, like in 2000, or foreign meddling. Such a crisis would push polarization higher, once again emphasizing the parallel with the 1870s, such as the 1876 “Stolen Election.” Trump Narrowly Defeated: The same could be said if Trump were to lose narrowly. Disputed vote recounts, or faithless electors in the Electoral College, or other unexpected incidents would give rise to accusations of a Deep State coup d'état against President Trump, leaving his supporters disaffected. Wag The Dog: It is also conceivable that an international crisis could occur in which the President is accused of “wagging the dog,” orchestrating a rally-around-the-flag effect to get reelected. Our top contenders for such an event are Venezuela, Iran, or North Korea. The crisis has Iran even closer to the brink and it is continuing to spar with the US in the Gulf and in Iraq (Charts 9A & 9B). A war of choice would heighten polarization, particularly at a time when the public is war-weary. (Obviously a genuine, non-manipulated war could also occur, but it would reduce not heighten polarization.) Chart 9AIran Was Extremely Vulnerable … Iran Was Extremely Vulnerable... Iran Was Extremely Vulnerable... Chart 9B… Even Prior To COVID-19 US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization COVID-19 has changed the outlook because it is much more likely now that Trump loses the election – yet it is also more likely that if he wins, he wins the popular vote. Chart 10Public View Of Trump’s Handling Of Pandemic Unclear Thus Far US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization Trump is more likely to lose because he faces recession and charges of mishandling the pandemic. The “bounce” in his approval rating has already subsided (Chart 10). The bounce in his and Republican support have subsided faster than that of other comparable world leaders and ruling parties. Trump’s polling bounce was also extremely small relative to other major presidential bounces in modern history – especially bounces derived from an exogenous crisis that was not the president’s fault, like COVID. “Enemy” shocks tend to create a 20%-30% boost to approval (Table 2). This is especially worrisome evidence for Trump. Table 2Trump’s Crisis Polling Bounce Compared To Previous Presidential Bounces US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization And yet Trump is more likely than he was prior to COVID to see his approval rise above 50% and win the popular vote. He briefly polled above 50% during the bounce. Look at Chart 10 again – his approval bounce is bottoming at 45%, higher than last year’s lows. There is still a 35% chance that Trump guides the country through the crisis and is rewarded at the voting booth. There are four reasons we still give Trump a 35% chance of winning. First, COVID itself is obviously not Trump’s fault (nor is it Xi Jinping’s). Second, the economy is going to benefit from historic stimulus. Third, COVID reinforces Trump’s major policy themes: tighter borders and more domestic manufacturing. Fourth, Biden is a weak challenger. Most importantly, a new national consensus is forming regardless of the US election outcome. The crisis has led to border shutdowns and highlighted the risk of globalization and border insecurity. Note that US policy on immigration first tightened under President Obama (Chart 11). In the post-COVID environment, candidate Biden will not be willing to be accused of wanting open borders. So this likely is an abiding theme in US politics – Biden will be more pro-immigration than Trump, but he will have to have some limits to protect against any future Trumpian populists. Chart 11AUS Will Tighten Immigration Laws One Way Or Another US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization Chart 11BUS Will Tighten Immigration Laws One Way Or Another US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization The COVID crisis has also exacerbated US-China tensions, urging “decoupling” and calling attention to US reliance on China to make testing kits, protective equipment, and key pharmaceuticals (Chart 12). As we have argued before, the US containment policy toward China began under President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” and is likely to continue under a Biden administration, particularly in the wake of COVID. Biden will be less tariff-happy than Trump, but he cannot win the Rust Belt, and keep it, if he is soft on China. What about fiscal policy? The great debate is over taxes and spending. And yet COVID has laid the starkest divisions to rest. Trump was never a “limited government” Republican, but if he wins reelection on this basis there is very little chance that he will revert to a pre-COVID Republican position of slashing social spending and taxes. First, Democrats may still keep the House. Second, like Boris Johnson in the UK, Trump would need to solidify the new conservative beachhead among the working class. This would require fiscal accommodation, i.e. limited spending retrenchment, despite the extraordinary stimulus of the pandemic. Biden, for his part, will raise taxes but not as much as Democrats may desire due to the need for economic recovery. Thus polarization is much more likely to fall in the wake of COVID and the US election on a new policy consensus of more secure borders, trade protectionism, and greater government spending. This new consensus will be reinforced by the more left-leaning ideology of the Millennial generation, which will reinforce the shift toward Big Government that is occurring under a Baby Boomer Republican president (Chart 13). Chart 12US Will Diversify Supply Chain Away From China US Will Diversify Supply Chain Away From China US Will Diversify Supply Chain Away From China Chart 13The Democratic Party Ascendancy US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization In the meantime the election conflict, rather than this new consensus, will dominate the national scene. Bottom Line: If Trump loses because of his handling of the pandemic and recession, it will likely be a landslide. Polarization will decrease, just as after earlier boiling points. His followers will be discouraged, leaving only a rump of loyalists. A new Democratic consensus is likely to emerge that incorporates policies that Obama and Trump had in common on borders and manufacturing. Polarization is likely to fall on a new policy consensus of more secure borders, trade protectionism and greater government spending.  If Trump wins because of his handling of the crisis, he is not likely to squeak by narrowly in the election. In this scenario he has by definition received a swell of support for his conduct amid a historic crisis. He would grow his mandate. This will reduce polarization under a new Big Government Republican consensus. Investment Takeaways Tactically we remain long defensive plays. We see no immediate end to dollar strength, safe haven flows, and US equity outperformance until the US pandemic stabilizes and a clear path for economic reopening begins to unfold. Even if US equities fall because of US political uncertainty this year, they can outperform international equities at least until Chinese and global growth stabilize and turn up. Strategically, we remain overweight global equities relative to US equities on the basis of relative valuations and looming US policy headwinds arising from more government intervention, more redistribution, and more on-shoring. China’s stimulus should help lift international equities over a one-year horizon. Note that in the near term this US equity underweight may continue to be offside. Housekeeping We are throwing in the towel on our long EUR-USD trade, which has lost 2% since inception, and our long German consumer services trade, which is down 6%. We are also closing our long Thai bonds trade relative to Malaysia for a miniscule gain of 1.4 basis points. We still recommend both of these markets as strong emerging market plays. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Over the past several months the model showed a tie, 269-269, which would have given Trump the victory through an arcane congressional process for selecting the president. Appendix: The Global Fiscal Stimulus Response To COVID-19 US: Peak Polarization US: Peak Polarization

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

Feature In this report, we determine which South and Southeast Asian countries are better equipped to endure the COVID-19 pandemic. Answers to this question combined with our macro fundamental analysis lead us to recommend which countries to favor or avoid. We assess several factors in regard to the COVID-19 shock: (1) the healthcare capacity in each country, (2) the COVID-19 containment measures that have been implemented, and (3) the magnitude of fiscal and monetary stimulus packages that have been announced. We conclude that EM equity investors should keep an overweight position in Thai equities and a neutral one in the Malaysian stock market. Indian, Indonesian and Philippine stock markets, on the other hand, warrant an underweight stance. Healthcare System Capacity The COVID-19 virus can cause individuals with underlying medical conditions and already in poor health, as well as those above a certain age, to become seriously ill when infected. These patients will require the kind of special medical attention  – such as ventilation – that is only provided in a hospital’s intensive care unit (ICU). A country that currently lacks sufficient ICU capacity relative to the number of patients requiring it, risks overburdening the health care system. This would be a social catastrophe. A country that currently lacks sufficient ICU capacity relative to the number of patients requiring it, risks over¬burdening the health care system. Therefore, a key measure of the current coronavirus crisis is the relation between a population’s risk of developing critical illness from COVID-19 infections and a country’s intensive care unit (ICU) availability. We assess the risk of COVID-19 infections developing into critical illnesses in ASEAN countries and in India by gauging (1) the prevalence of diabetes in the population and (2) the share in population of people above the age of 60. Chart I-1 and Chart I-2 illustrate these factors separately. Chart I-1ASEAN & India: Population With Diabetes COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities Chart I-2Population Above 60 Years Old COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities In addition, we combine these two risk variables to calculate the risk of critical illness. This measure is shown in Chart I-3. The measure shows that the population of both Malaysia and Thailand carry the highest risk of developing critical illnesses from COVID-19, owing to Malaysia’s high prevalence of diabetes and to Thailand’s rapidly aging population. Meanwhile, that risk is somewhat lower in India and dramatically lower in both the Philippines and Indonesia.  The next thing to look at is each country’s ICU capacity. Chart I-4 shows the number of ICU beds available per 100,000 people. Thailand has the highest number and Malaysia the second highest. On the other hand, India, Indonesia and the Philippines all have lower rates of ICU capacity. Chart i-3The Risk Of Critical Illness From COVID-19 COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities Chart I-4Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Capacity COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities Finally, we compare the risk of critical illness in each country to its available ICU capacity. Chart I-5 shows a scatter plot between these two variables. The risk of critical illness is shown on the Y-axis and the availability of ICU beds per 100,000 people is plotted on the X-axis. Thailand and Malaysia both have the highest risk of critical illness but also a large number of available ICU beds. India, Indonesia and the Philippines have lower average risk of critical illness but also far fewer ICU bed availabilities. Chart I-5The Risk Of Critical Illness Versus ICU Capacity COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities It is also important to note that Malaysia has the highest relative number of medical doctors per 10,000 people in the region (15 versus an average of 8). Furthermore, both Malaysia and Thailand appear to be performing many more COVID-19 tests. That in turn should help slow the spread of the virus and avoid overwhelming health care systems of Malaysia and Thailand. Bottom Line: Thailand and Malaysia have decent healthcare care capabilities relative to the threat of critical illness among their populations. India, Indonesia and the Philippines, on the other hand, seem relatively unprepared to weather this outbreak. Containment Response The magnitude and effectiveness of social distancing measures implemented is a critical means of protecting a country’s health care system. Indeed, the sooner such measures are put into place, the earlier the threat of the pandemic is likely to subside. This will then allow a country to normalize its economic activities sooner.  It appears that the Philippines and India have enacted the most stringent social distancing measures. Both announced complete lockdowns and called in their respective national armies to intervene. Malaysia has also announced extremely inhibitive measures and their enforcement has been quite successful. In Thailand, while the authorities have not imposed a complete lockdown, they have placed curfews and checkpoints that are subject to extension. Thai authorities have also warned that more restrictive measures could be imposed if residents do not comply. Indonesia, on the other hand, has been much softer on enforcement and is reluctant to introduce additional measures due to its economic concerns. Malaysia and Thailand emerge as the most likely to win the battle against COVID-19 in the region. Remarkably, the effectiveness of the measures can be quantitatively assessed via Google’s COVID-19 mobility tool and TomTom’s traffic congestion data. The average of all Google’s mobility variables, as of April 5, has declined most significantly in the Philippines, Malaysia, and India, relative to baseline values (Chart I-6).1 Likewise, TomTom’s traffic congestion data for the major cities in these same countries’ shows a similar decline during average peak hours over the first two weeks of April 2020, relative to the same period in 2019 (Chart I-7). Chart I-6How Effective Are Social Distancing Measures? COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities Chart I-7Decline In Traffic From ##br##A Year Ago COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities Bottom Line: The Philippines, India, and Malaysia have imposed the most effective and successful social distancing measures. This is then followed by Thailand. Indonesia on the other hand has not been as effective in this aspect. Fiscal And Monetary Stimulus Table I-1Stimulus Packages So Far Announced COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities COVID-19 Battle: Assessing ASEAN And Indian Capabilities The magnitude of the stimulus plans announced by each country is also important. Once the pandemic subsides and social distancing measures are relaxed, countries with a larger stimulus package in place should experience a faster economic recovery. Table I-1 shows the size of the overall stimulus packages announced so far. Malaysia and Thailand have the largest overall stimulus packages to the tune of 16% and 14% of GDP, respectively. India, Indonesia and the Philippines fall well short of these levels. Regarding monetary policy, central banks in all these countries have been cutting policy rates and injecting local currency liquidity. However, some of the programs announced by some of the central banks stand out: The Bank Of Thailand will inject 400 billion baht ($13 billion or 2% of GDP) into the corporate bond market. The central bank is also allocating 500 billion baht ($15 billion or 3% of GDP) of soft loans to small-and mid-sized companies.2 The central bank of the Philippines will be purchasing 300 billion pesos worth of government bonds ($6 billion or 1.6% of GDP) under a 3- to 6-month repurchase agreement to aid government efforts in countering the pandemic. Bank Indonesia may also begin buying government bonds (recovery/pandemic bonds) directly from the primary market. Details are not yet clear but the Indonesian government plans to issue $27 billion worth of these bonds and the central bank might emerge as the largest buyer. Similarly, the Reserve Bank of India has been injecting liquidity and purchasing government bonds for some time now. For instance, it announced a 1 trillion rupees injection in February – or $13 billion – via the long-term repo operation channel. It is now infusing an additional 1 trillion rupees through the same channel. It will also continue purchasing government bonds and securities to keep liquidity aflush and suppress market interest rates. Crucially, Governor Shaktikanta Das indicated that the RBI might even be forced to purchase government bonds directly from the primary market and that all options – including non-conventional ones – are on the table. Bottom Line: Both Thailand and Malaysia have so far announced larger overall stimulus packages than Indonesia, the Philippines and India have. This combined with their better health care capacities, suggests that the Thai and Malaysian economies will recover more quickly than they will in India, Indonesia and the Philippines. Conclusions Having considered risk of critical illness, the ICU availability and general medical capacities, the effectiveness of social distancing measures, and the stimulus packages each country has announced, Malaysia and Thailand emerge as the most likely to win the battle against COVID-19 in the region. Despite their elevated risk of critical illness, both countries have decent healthcare system capacities. Additionally, Malaysia has put in place very effective social distancing measures. Meanwhile, Thailand is placing curfews and monitoring developments very closely. Finally, both countries have enacted massive stimulus packages that will aid in the recovery of their economies later this year.  Notably, Thailand and Malaysia have been running current account surpluses for a long period of time whereas India, Indonesia and the Philippines generally run current account deficits. This, in turn, will allow the former to implement much larger overall stimulus packages than the latter, without risking major currency depreciation. Despite strong and successful social distancing efforts, India and the Philippines are hampered by a weakness in their health care infrastructures. They also are unlikely to be able to provide a large enough stimulus without subjecting themselves to significant currency depreciation. Additionally, India also has an elevated critical illness risk. Finally, Indonesia is likely to emerge from the crisis in the weakest position. Its healthcare system capacity is weak, the social distancing measures it implemented are insufficient and its enforcement has been lax. Indonesia is likely to emerge from the crisis in the weakest position. The government has also been timid about enacting significant stimulus given that it runs a large current account deficit. Moreover, it is unwilling to tolerate any further large currency depreciation due to the elevated foreign currency debt that Indonesian companies and banks carry. The latter stands at  $124 billion in the form of both bonds and loans. Investment Strategy Chart I-8Thai Stock Prices Vs. Emerging Markets Thai Stock Prices Vs. Emerging Markets Thai Stock Prices Vs. Emerging Markets The following is our strategy recommendations for each country: Thailand: Our equity overweight stance on this bourse has been significantly challenged since early this year (Chart I-8). However, Thai stocks seem to be holding up at an important technical support level in relative terms.       Furthermore, as of December 2019, the ownership of the country’s local currency bonds was low at 17% (i.e. even before the global sell-off commenced). Further selling by foreigners should therefore be limited, which should reduce renewed depreciation pressures on the Thai currency. We recommend that respective EM portfolios keep an overweight position on Thai equities, sovereign US dollar and local currency bonds. Malaysia: On the one hand, Malaysian stocks have been underperforming EM benchmarks since 2014. Also, foreign ownership of Malaysian local currency bonds has declined from 34% in 2016 to 25% as of December 2019. This limits the possibility of future foreign selling. On the other hand, the economy was facing severe deflationary pressures even before the COVID-19 shock occurred. The latter will only reinforce these deflationary dynamics. Considering the positives and the negatives together, we recommend a neutral allocation to Malaysia within an EM equity portfolio. The Philippines:  Philippine stock prices relative to EM seem to have broken below a critical support level that will now act as resistance (Chart I-9). Moreover, local currency government bond yields have risen sharply (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). This does not bode well for real estate and bank stocks that account for a very large market-cap chunk of the Philippine MSCI Index (46%). Critically, government expenditures were strong even before the COVID-19 pandemic occurred and it was only a matter of time before that contributed to higher imports. Now that exports are crashing - due to collapsing global demand - and imports are likely to remain high because of even higher government spending/fiscal stimulus, the current account deficit will widen substantially. This will cause the peso – which has been holding up so far – to depreciate significantly. Stay underweight on this bourse and local currency government bonds relative to their respective EM benchmarks. We also recommend keeping a short position on the Philippine peso versus the US dollar. Chart I-9Philippine Stock Prices Vs. Emerging Markets Philippine Stock Prices Vs. Emerging Markets Philippine Stock Prices Vs. Emerging Markets Chart I-10Philippine Yields In Absolute Terms... Philippine Yields In Absolute Terms... Philippine Yields In Absolute Terms... Chart I-11...And Relative To Their EM Peers ...And Relative To Their EM Peers ...And Relative To Their EM Peers India: We discussed India in detail in a recent report. We recommend an underweight position amid the pandemic. In previous years, private banks lent enormous amounts to consumers via mortgages and consumer loans/credit cards. Therefore, the performance of both sectors has been contingent on the health of the Indian consumer sector. However, the outlook for the Indian consumer has worsened dramatically because of the unprecedented income hit households will suffer from the lockdown. Moreover, social safety nets and health care capacities (as mentioned above) are very weak in India. Indonesia: We also discussed Indonesia in detail in a report published on April 2. In recent years, the Indonesian bourse benefited from lower US interest rates and ignored deteriorating domestic fundamentals and lower commodities prices. Global investors’ increased sensitivity to individual EM fundamentals amid this pandemic will only make Indonesia’s weakest spots – like its exposure to commodities and its anemic domestic demand – more apparent. With global growth being very weak, commodities prices will remain low – reinforcing currency depreciation and pushing corporate bond yields higher. Combined with relapsing domestic growth, the Indonesian bourse will likely continue underperforming. Bottom Line:  Within an EM equity portfolio, we are keeping an overweight position on the Thai stock market. We also recommend keeping Malaysian equities on neutral. Our equity underweights are India, Indonesia, and the Philippines. In terms of fixed income markets, we recommend overweighting Thai, Malaysian and Indian local currency bonds and US dollar sovereign bonds. We recommend underweighting Indonesian and Philippine local and US dollar sovereign bonds.   Ayman Kawtharani Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The baseline is the median value between January 3 and February 6. Our average calculation includes retail & recreation, grocery & pharmacy, parks, transit stations, and workplaces. It excludes the residential variable. 2 Note that this is part of the stimulus shown in Table 1.