Disasters/Disease

Highlights Duration: The coronavirus is still weighing on yields and could push them down further in the near-term. However, the history of past viral outbreaks suggests that yields will move sharply higher once the daily number of new cases falls to zero. Fed: We would speculate that, this year, the Fed is very likely to change its framework so that it can seek a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target. This may involve moving to an “average inflation targeting” regime implemented via operational inflation ranges. Labor Market: It is very likely that employment growth peaked for the cycle in 2015, but falling employment growth is only consistent with the end of the economic recovery when it breaks below monthly labor force growth, causing the unemployment rate to rise. Feature Chart 1Fresh Lows! Fresh Lows Fresh Lows The ultimate economic fallout from the coronavirus remains uncertain, but bond investors are starting to fear the worst. As we go to press, the 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields have both made new cyclical troughs at 1.36% and 1.83%, respectively (Chart 1). The 3-month / 10-year Treasury slope is once again inverted and the 2/10 slope is down to 11 bps, from 34 bps at the start of the year (Chart 1, bottom panel). This behavior tells us that the market is pricing-in a significant economic slowdown stemming from the coronavirus, one that will force the Fed to ease policy this year. Indeed, the overnight index swap curve is priced for more than 50 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months, and fed funds futures are discounting 58% chance of a 25 basis point rate cut in either March or April. In direct opposition to the market’s moves, the past week saw several FOMC members push back against the idea of a rate cut. Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said in an interview:1 There are many different scenarios about what’s going to happen between now and say June or July. My baseline expectations are that the economy is not going to see rising risks and it’s going to stay stable, so we won’t have to do anything. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard was even more forceful, saying:2 There’s a high probability that the coronavirus will blow over as other viruses have, be a temporary shock and everything will come back. But there’s a low probability that this could get much worse. Markets have to price that in, and that drags down the center of gravity a little bit. But if this all goes away, I expect that pricing will come back out of the market and we’ll be back to the on-hold scenario. Finally, Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida challenged the notion that expectations for a 2020 rate cut are widespread. Similar to Bullard, he claimed that market prices reflect hedging against potential downside risks. He went on to cite survey measures that show investors looking for a flat funds rate in their base case scenarios.3 There’s a wide gap between survey and market rate expectations. Clarida’s point about the discrepancy between market and survey rate expectations is well taken. Chart 2 shows that the median forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants calls for an unchanged fed funds rate through 2022. However, it’s important to note that this survey was taken prior to the January FOMC meeting, when the coronavirus was only just starting to hit the news. Chart 2A Wide Gap Between Market And Survey Expectations A Wide Gap Between Market And Survey Expectations A Wide Gap Between Market And Survey Expectations Do They Protest Too Much? We can sympathize with the FOMC’s desire to push back against market expectations that it feels are off target, but we also think the strategy could prove self-defeating. If the market starts to believe that the Fed will not ease policy quickly enough, the yield curve will flatten even more and risk assets (equities and credit spreads) will sell off. Both of those developments would increase the pressure on the Fed to ease policy. Chart 3The History Of Viral Outbreaks The History Of Viral Outbreaks The History Of Viral Outbreaks In fact, if the present market turmoil continues, the Fed is very likely to deliver a rate cut sometime this year in an effort to support confidence and limit the potential economic damage from the coronavirus. Unfortunately, at this point we have no idea whether the coronavirus will spread further during the next couple of months, or whether it will be contained. In the former scenario, financial conditions will continue to tighten and the Fed will ease policy. In the latter scenario, financial conditions will not tighten aggressively and the Fed will stay on hold. In either case, given the uncertainty of the situation, we recommend stepping aside on our prior recommendation to short the August 2020 fed funds futures contract. No matter how long it takes to contain the coronavirus, we would expect growth to rebound quickly once the situation is resolved. This has been the pattern of past viral outbreaks: a steady decline in bond yields that sharply reverses course when the daily number of new cases reaches zero (Chart 3). Even accounting for its sharp drop during the past few days, the 10-year Treasury yield is still tracking the pattern of past viral outbreaks, and a jump in yields seems likely once the virus is contained. For this reason, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark duration on a 12-month horizon. The US Election Is The Biggest Risk To Our Cyclical View The main risk to our 6-12 month below-benchmark portfolio duration stance is the possibility that as soon as the market is done worrying about the coronavirus it jumps right to worrying about the outcome of the US election. This could keep Treasury yields low throughout all of 2020. We argued last week that Treasury yields could come under downward pressure if Bernie Sanders looks set to win the election, while a victory for Donald Trump or one of the other Democratic candidates would be neutral for yields.4 As it stands now, Sanders has taken a more decisive lead in the Democratic leadership race after winning in Nevada. But President Trump’s approval rating has also been tacking higher. We will continue to monitor this risk closely in the coming weeks, and may alter our cyclical duration view depending on how polls evolve in March. The Fed may be forced to cut rates this year if financial conditions continue to tighten. Bottom Line: The coronavirus is still weighing on yields and could push them down further in the near-term. However, the history of past viral outbreaks suggests that yields will move sharply higher once the daily number of new cases falls to zero. Likewise, credit spreads have near-term upside until the virus is contained, but will tighten anew once the threat has passed. As discussed last week, the fundamental credit cycle backdrop remains supportive.5 The Fed may be forced to cut rates this year if financial conditions continue to tighten. Dual Mandate Update As discussed above, Fed participants generally view the current level of interest rates as appropriate and have been reluctant to hint at any upcoming policy changes. It’s not that difficult to see why. If we recall that the Fed’s dual mandate – as set by Congress – is to pursue maximum employment and price stability, then it’s pretty clear that current policy is delivering on both fronts. Chart 4 shows that the sum of the unemployment rate and 12-month consumer price inflation – the so-called Misery Index – is about as low as it has been since the 1960s. Further, the outlook for 2020 is that employment growth will remain firm and inflation tepid. Chart 4The Fed Has The Economy In A Good Spot The Fed Has The Economy In A Good Spot The Fed Has The Economy In A Good Spot Labor Market Chart 5Employment Growth Greater Than Labor Force Growth Employment Growth Greater Than Labor Force Growth Employment Growth Greater Than Labor Force Growth It is very likely that employment growth peaked for the cycle back in 2015, but falling employment growth is only consistent with the end of the economic recovery when it breaks below monthly labor force growth, causing the unemployment rate to rise. During the past 12 months, monthly employment gains have averaged +171k compared to a +122k average increase in the labor force (Chart 5). In other words, employment growth is slowly trending down but it remains at a comfortable level. Beyond decelerating employment, rising labor force participation is the other important trend in the US labor market. While it’s tempting to think that stronger labor force growth might only raise the bar for what employment growth is necessary to keep the recovery on track, this is not the case. In practice, gross labor flow data show that, since 2017, 73% of people that entered the labor force transitioned directly to being employed. Only 27% of those entering the labor force transitioned to unemployed status. Simply, rising labor force growth tends to push employment growth higher as well. It does not make it more likely that the unemployment rate will rise. Rising labor force participation has not gone unnoticed. The minutes from January’s FOMC meeting revealed that: Many participants pointed to the strong performance of labor force participation despite the downward pressures associated with an aging population, and several raised the possibility that there was some room for labor force participation to rise further. The prime age participation rate is already back to pre-crisis levels and the female 24-54 part rate is making new highs (Chart 6). Nonetheless, US prime age participation remains low compared to other developed countries – like its closest neighbor Canada – making further gains possible. Chart 6Do Part Rates Have More ##br##Upside? Do Part Rates Have More Upside Do Part Rates Have More Upside Chart 7Don't Be Alarmed By The Drop In Job Openings Don't Be Alarmed By The Drop In Job Openings Don't Be Alarmed By The Drop In Job Openings Finally, many have pointed to the recent drop in Job Openings as a reason to be concerned about the state of the US labor market (Chart 7). We view these concerns as unfounded. First, the drop in openings does not appear to be related to flagging labor demand. The Job Hires rate is steady and involuntary layoffs are low. Against a backdrop of steady demand, fewer openings could simply mean that there is a little more slack in the labor market than was previously thought. Inflation On inflation, we see little chance of a meaningful surge this year. The Prices Paid and Supplier Delivery components of the ISM Manufacturing index, two indicators that tend to lead changes in core inflation, are downtrodden (Chart 8). Meanwhile, base effects could cause 12-month core CPI to jump in the next month or two, but are more likely to drag it down on a 6-month horizon (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8Inflation Will Remain Tame In 2020 Inflation Will Remain Tame In 2020 Inflation Will Remain Tame In 2020 At the component level, shelter is the largest component of core CPI but it is unlikely to accelerate in the coming months. The National Multifamily Housing Council’s Survey of Apartment Market Conditions just ticked below 50 (Chart 9). Shelter inflation is more likely to rise when the index is firmly above 50 in “tightening” territory. Further, the recent jump in core goods inflation is set to wane in the coming months. Core goods inflation tracks non-oil import prices with a lag of about 18 months, and import prices have been on a declining trend (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 9Shelter And Core Goods Inflation Shelter And Core Goods Inflation Shelter And Core Goods Inflation Bottom Line: The Fed is performing well on its dual mandate. Employment growth is firm, inflationary pressures are tepid and continued accommodative monetary policy might be able to pull more people into the labor force. Absent any desire to preemptively ease to counteract the effects of the coronavirus, the Fed’s on hold policy stance is appropriate. Tracking The Fed’s Balance Sheet We strongly disagree with the suggestion that the increase in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet meaningfully impacted Treasury yields or risky assets this year.6 But the Fed’s balance sheet policy remains a point of interest nonetheless, and last week we received more information about what the Fed intends to do with its balance sheet this year. Specifically, the Fed has decided that $1.5 trillion will serve as a firm floor for bank reserves. That is, the Fed will not allow the supply of reserves to fall below that level, and will typically maintain a significant buffer above $1.5 trillion. To accomplish this, the Fed would prefer to transition away from daily repo transactions. It would rather rely on its Treasury and T-bill purchases to keep reserves at desired levels. $1.5 trillion will be the firm floor on bank reserves.   With that in mind, the Fed now plans to scale daily repo operations back to zero by the end of April. The Fed’s $60 billion per month T-bill purchases will continue through the second quarter. After that, the pace of asset purchases will be lowered, with the goal of simply keeping reserve supply stable. It has not yet been decided whether Treasury purchases after June will be concentrated in T-bills or spread out across the maturity spectrum. Chart 10 and Table 1 show our updated projections for what the Fed’s balance sheet will look like at the end of June. Our projections show a reserve level of $1.7 trillion at the end of June, significantly above the $1.5 trillion floor. This provides a healthy buffer in case a spike in the Treasury’s General Account leads to a temporary drop in reserve supply. Chart 10The Fed's Balance Sheet Securities And Reserves The Fed's Balance Sheet Securities And Reserves The Fed's Balance Sheet Securities And Reserves Table 1Fed's Balance Sheet Projections Fighting The Fed Fighting The Fed The Biggest Changes The Fed Could Make This Year (And More Details About The Ongoing Strategic Review) Chart 11Monitoring Financial Conditions Monitoring Financial Conditions Monitoring Financial Conditions The minutes from the January FOMC meeting, released last week, revealed a few important details about the Fed’s ongoing strategic review. The strategic review is a process that the Fed expects to complete by mid-year, where it will consider potential changes to its monetary policy strategy, tools and communication practices. At the last FOMC meeting, the committee took up the issues of how to incorporate financial stability into the Fed’s monetary policy strategy and of whether it should consider targeting an inflation range instead of a specific point. Financial Stability The traditional consensus in central banking was that interest rates should not be used to manage financial stability risks. Rather, monetary policy should remain focused on the dual mandate of full employment and inflation. In January’s discussion, FOMC participants generally agreed that macroprudential and regulatory policies remain the preferred methods for dealing with financial stability risks. But participants also recognized that this might not suffice: Many participants remarked that the Committee should not rule out the possibility of adjusting the stance of monetary policy to mitigate financial stability risks, particularly when those risks have important implications for the economic outlook and when macroprudential tools had been or were likely to be ineffective at mitigating those risks. At January’s FOMC meeting, the Fed staff also presented the idea of a “financial stability escape clause” that would “provide leeway for the central bank to deviate from its usual monetary policy strategy if financial vulnerabilities become significant.” For our part, we have consistently argued that, if inflation expectations remain stubbornly low, the Fed may eventually lift rates this cycle in response to signs of excess in financial markets.7 So far, we don’t see asset valuations as stretched enough to prompt Fed tightening (Chart 11), but the longer that interest rates stay low, the more likely it is that financial market valuations will reach bubbly levels. Inflation Ranges The FOMC discussed two types of inflation ranges at the January FOMC meeting. They discussed ranges that are symmetrical around the Fed’s 2% target, and “operational ranges” that could be moved around depending on the Fed’s policy goals. In theory, the advantage of a symmetric inflation range around the Fed’s 2% target is that it could help communicate the inherent uncertainty in measuring inflation, and the difficulty in forecasting it with precision. However, participants worried that introducing a symmetric inflation range at a time when inflation has been running below the Fed’s 2% target would signal that the Fed is comfortable with below-target inflation. In contrast, the idea of an operational range has some appeal, especially if the Fed decides to shift from a pure forward-looking 2% inflation target to a target that seeks to achieve average 2% inflation over time. How would this work? In an environment where inflation had been running below 2% for several years, the Fed would set its operational range to be 2%-2.5% for a time (Chart 12). Once it judged that enough of an overshoot of 2% had taken place to make up for past downside misses, it would shift back to a symmetric operational range of say 1.75%-2.25%. Or perhaps, if it judged that inflation needed to undershoot 2% for a time, it would set its operational range as 1.5%-2%. Crucially, the operational range would be moved around at the discretion of the Committee with the goal of achieving 2% inflation on average over time. Chart 12The Fed Could Adopt An Operational Target Inflation Range of 2-2.5 This Year The Fed Could Adopt An Operational Target Inflation Range of 2-2.5 This Year The Fed Could Adopt An Operational Target Inflation Range of 2-2.5 This Year The Most That Could Be Announced This Year Based on the info we’ve received so far from the FOMC minutes and the speeches of several Fed Governors, two in particular from Governor Lael Brainard.8 We now have a decent sense of the most dramatic changes that could be announced this year. In all likelihood, the announced changes will be somewhat less dramatic than those listed below, as consensus amongst committee members on all the details will be difficult to achieve. The Fed will change from a forward-looking 2% inflation target to one that seeks to achieve average inflation of 2% over time. It will implement its new inflation targeting framework by using operational inflation ranges that will be moved around at the discretion of the Committee. The Fed will allow for the possibility of changing interest rates in response to financial stability risks, if it is thought that those risks threaten the dual mandate of full employment and 2% inflation. It will announce a new tool for implementing monetary policy at the zero-lower bound where it puts a hard cap on bond yields out to some specific maturity. The cap won’t be lifted until some specified economic goals are met. We would speculate that, this year, the Fed is very likely to change its framework so that it can seek a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target. This may involve moving to an “average inflation targeting” regime implemented via operational inflation ranges, or it could be a more watered down version of the same idea. Similarly, we would also expect that any announced changes to the Fed’s policy strategy will include more explicit language related to financial stability risks. As for the idea of adopting bond yield caps at the zero-lower bound, a policy that is similar to the Bank of Japan’s current Yield Curve Control policy. This may not be announced this year, especially since the Fed probably believes that it has more time to mull over this sort of proposal.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Transcript: Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic Speaks with CNBC’s Steve Liesman on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Today,” CNBC, dated February 21, 2020. 2 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Excerpts: St. Louis Fed President James Bullard Speaks with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Today,” CNBC, dated February 21, 2020. 3 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Transcript: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Richard Clarida Speaks with CNBC’s Steve Liesman,” CNBC, dated February 20, 2020. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Credit Cycle Is Far From Over,” dated February 18, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Credit Cycle Is Far From Over,” dated February 18, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Our rationale is explained in US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2020,” dated December 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2020,” dated December 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Governor Lael Brainard, “Federal Reserve Review of Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communications: Some Preliminary Views,” dated November 26, 2019, and “Monetary Policy Strategies and Tools When Inflation and Interest Rates Are Low,” dated February 21, 2020,  Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The coronavirus is a wild card that may have a significant impact on the global economy, … : The COVID-19 outbreak is unfolding in real time, half a world away, and its ultimate course is uncertain. For now, our China strategists think the worst-case scenarios are unlikely, but we will not remain constructive if the virus outlook materially worsens. … but as long as there is not a significantly negative exogenous event, the US economy will be just fine, … : From a domestic perspective, the US expansion is in very good shape. Easy monetary conditions will support a range of activities, and a potent labor market will give increasing numbers of households the confidence and wherewithal to ramp up consumption. … and if there’s no recession, there will not be a bear market: Recessions and equity bear markets coincide, with stocks typically peaking six months ahead of the onset of a recession. If the next recession doesn’t come before late 2021/early 2022, the bull market should remain intact at least through the end of this year. What We Do US Investment Strategy’s stated mission is to analyze the US economy and its future direction for the purpose of helping clients make asset-allocation and portfolio-management decisions. As important as the economic backdrop is, however, we never forget that we are investment strategists, not economic forecasters. We don’t belabor the state of every facet of the economy because neither we nor our clients care about 10- to 20-basis-point wiggles in real GDP growth in themselves. They do want us to keep them apprised of the general trend, though, and we are always trying to assess it. Ultimately, macro analysis benefits investors by providing them with timely recognition of the approach or emergence of an inflection point in the cycles that matter most for financial assets. We view investment strategy as the practical application of the study of cycles, and we are continuously monitoring the business cycle, the credit cycle, the monetary policy cycle and the squishy and only sporadically relevant sentiment cycle. This week, we turn our attention to the business cycle, and the ongoing viability of the expansion, which is already the longest on record at 128 months and counting. If it remains intact, risk assets are likely to continue to generate returns in excess of returns on Treasuries and cash. The Message From Our Simple Recession Indicator We have previously described our simple recession indicator.1 It has just three components, and all three of them have to be sounding the alarm to conclude that a recession is imminent. Our first input is the slope of the yield curve, measured by the difference between the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month T-bill.2 The yield curve inverts when the 3-month bill yield exceeds the 10-year bond yield, and a recession has followed all but one yield curve inversion over the last 50 years (Chart 1). The yield curve inverted from May through September last year, and the coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) has driven it to invert again, but the unprecedentedly negative term premium (Chart 2) has made the curve much more prone to set off a false alarm. Chart 1An Inverted Curve May Not Be What It Used To Be ... An Inverted Curve May Not Be What It Used To Be ... An Inverted Curve May Not Be What It Used To Be ... Chart 2... When A Negative Term Premium Is Holding Down Long Yields ... When A Negative Term Premium Is Holding Down Long Yields ... When A Negative Term Premium Is Holding Down Long Yields The indicator’s second input is the year-over-year change in the leading economic index (“LEI”). When the LEI contracts on a year-over-year basis, a recession typically ensues. As with the inverted yield curve, year-over-year contractions in the LEI have successfully called all of the recessions in the last 50 years with just one false positive (Chart 3). The LEI bounced off the zero line thanks to January’s strong reading, and the year-ago comparisons are much easier than they were last year, but we are mindful that it is flirting with sending a recession warning. Chart 3Leading Indicators Are Wobbly, ... Leading Indicators Are Wobbly, ... Leading Indicators Are Wobbly, ... It takes more than tight monetary conditions to make a recession, but you can't have one without them. To confirm the signal from the yield curve and the LEI and make it more robust, we also consider the monetary policy backdrop. Over the nearly 60 years for which BCA’s model calculates an equilibrium rate, every recession has occurred when the fed funds rate has exceeded our estimate of equilibrium (Chart 4). Tight monetary policy isn’t a sufficient condition for a recession – expansions continued for six more years despite tight policy in the mid-‘80s and mid-'90s – but it is a necessary one. Our indicator will not definitively signal an approaching recession until monetary conditions turn restrictive. Chart 4... But The Fed Is Nowhere Near Inducing A Recession ... But The Fed Is Nowhere Near Inducing A Recession ... But The Fed Is Nowhere Near Inducing A Recession Bottom Line: In our view, the yield curve and the LEI both represent yellow lights, though the LEI has a greater likelihood of turning red, especially in the wake of COVID-19. Monetary policy is unambiguously green, however, and we will not conclude that a recession is imminent until the Fed deliberately attempts to rein in the economy. Bolstering Theory With Observation A potential shortcoming of our recession indicator is its reliance on a theoretical concept. The equilibrium (or natural) rate of interest cannot be directly observed, so our judgment of whether monetary policy is easy or tight turns on an estimate. To bolster our assessment of whether or not the expansion can continue, we have been tracking the drivers of the main components of US output. Going back to the GDP equation from Introductory Macroeconomics, GDP = C + I + G + (X - M), we look at the forces supporting Consumption (C), Investment (I) and Government Spending (G). (Because the US is a comparatively closed economy in which trade plays a minor role, we ignore net exports (X-M).) Consumption is by far the largest component, accounting for two-thirds of overall output, while investment and government spending each contribute a sixth. As critical as consumption is for the US economy, it is not the whole story; smaller but considerably more volatile investment is capable of plunging the economy into a recession on its own. The Near-Term Outlook For Consumption Chart 5Labor Market Slack Has Been Absorbed Labor Market Slack Has Been Absorbed Labor Market Slack Has Been Absorbed Consumption depends on household income, the condition of household balance sheets, and households’ willingness to spend. The labor market remains extremely tight, with the unemployment rate at a 50-year low, and “hidden” unemployment dwindling as the supply of discouraged (Chart 5, top panel) and involuntary part-time workers (Chart 5, bottom panel) has withered. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio trails only the peak reached during the dot-com era (Chart 6), which bodes well for household income. The historical correlation between the prime-age non-employment-to-population ratio and wage gains has been quite robust, and compensation growth has plenty of room to run before it catches up with the best-fit line (Chart 7). Chart 6Prime-Age Employment Has Surged, ... Prime-Age Employment Has Surged, ... Prime-Age Employment Has Surged, ... Chart 7... And Wages Will Eventually Follow Suit Back To Basics Back To Basics Chart 8No Pressing Need To Save, Or Pay Down Debt No Pressing Need To Save, Or Pay Down Debt No Pressing Need To Save, Or Pay Down Debt Households can use additional income to increase savings or pay down debt instead of spending it, but it doesn’t look like they will. The savings rate is already quite elevated, having returned to its mid-‘90s levels (Chart 8, top panel); households have already run debt down to its post-dot-com bust levels (Chart 8, middle panel); and debt service is less demanding than it has been at any point in the last 40 years (Chart 8, bottom panel). The health of household balance sheets, and the recent pickup in the expectations component of the consumer confidence surveys, suggest that households have the ability and the willingness to keep consumption growing at or above trend.   Household balance sheets are healthy enough to support spending income gains; there's even room to borrow to augment them.           The Near-Term Outlook For Investment Table 1GDP Equation Recession Probabilities Back To Basics Back To Basics Chart 9A Budding Turnaround A Budding Turnaround A Budding Turnaround We previously identified investment as the individual component most likely to decline enough to zero out trend growth from the other two components (Table 1), and it was a drag in 2019, declining in each of the last three quarters to end the year more than 3% below its peak. We expect it will hold up better this year, however, as the capital spending intentions components of the NFIB survey of smaller businesses (Chart 9, top panel) and the regional Fed manufacturing surveys (Chart 9, bottom panel) have both pulled out of declines. The trade tensions with China weighed heavily on business confidence in 2019, but the signing of the Phase 1 trade agreement lifted that cloud, and we expect that capex will revive in line with confidence once COVID-19 has been subdued. Government Spending In An Election Year Chart 10State And Local Revenues Are Well Supported State And Local Revenues Are Well Supported State And Local Revenues Are Well Supported Heading into the most hotly contested election in many years, we confidently assert that federal spending is not going to go away. Regardless of party affiliation, everyone in Congress sees the appeal of distributing pork to their constituents. Spending by state and local governments, which accounts for 60% of aggregate government spending, should also hold up well, as a robust labor market will support state income tax (Chart 10, top panel) and sales tax (Chart 10, middle panel) receipts. Healthy trailing home price gains will support property tax assessments, keeping municipal coffers full (Chart 10, bottom panel). Coronavirus Uncertainties The coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19) is unfolding in real time, generating daily updates on new infections, deaths and recoveries. Any opinion we offer on the economy’s future is conditioned on the virus' ongoing course. If it takes a sharp turn for the worse, with more severe consequences than we had previously expected, it is likely that we will downgrade our outlook. For now, we are operating under the projection that the virus will cause China’s first quarter output to contract sharply enough to zero out global growth in the first quarter. Our base-case scenario, following from the work of our China Investment Strategy service, is fairly benign from there. For now, we are expecting that the worst of the effects will be confined to the first quarter, and that the Chinese economy and the global economy will bounce back vigorously in the second quarter and beyond, powered by pent-up demand that will go unfilled until the outbreak begins to recede. Our China strategists continue to be heartened by Chinese officials' aggressive (albeit belated) measures to stem the outbreak, revealed in the apparent slowing of the rate of new infections in Hubei province, the epicenter of the outbreak (Chart 11, top panel), and in the rest of China (Chart 11, bottom panel). They also expect a determined policy response to offset the drag from the epidemic (Charts 12 and 13), as officials pursue the imperative of meeting their goal to double the size of the economy between 2010 and 2020. Chart 11Stringent Quarantine Measures May Be Gaining Traction Back To Basics Back To Basics Chart 12The PBOC Is Doing Its Part, ... The PBOC Is Doing Its Part, ... The PBOC Is Doing Its Part, ... Chart 13... By Easing Monetary Conditions ... By Easing Monetary Conditions ... By Easing Monetary Conditions If the economy is expanding, investors' bar for de-risking should be high. Bottom Line: Our China strategists’ COVID-19 view remains fairly optimistic, though it is subject to unfolding developments. Our US view is contingent on BCA’s evolving COVID-19 views. Investment Implications As we noted at the outset, we are not interested in the economy for the economy’s sake; we are only interested in its impact on financial markets. The key business-cycle takeaway for markets is that bear markets and recessions typically coincide, as it is difficult to get a 20% decline at the index level without a meaningful decline in earnings, and earnings only decline meaningfully during recessions. No recession means no bear market, and it also means no meaningful pickup in loan delinquencies and defaults. The bottom line is that it is premature to de-risk while the expansion remains intact. We reiterate our recommendation that investors should remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios, and at least equal weight spread product within fixed income allocations, though we may turn more cautious as we learn more about the progression of COVID-19.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the August 13, 2018 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Much Longer Can The Bull Market Last?" available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use the 3-month/10-year segment instead of the more common 2-year/10-year because the 3-month bill is a cleaner proxy for short rates than the 2-year note, which incorporates estimates of the Fed’s future actions.

Checklist Complete Checklist Complete Overweight Investors tend to overreact to events such as virus epidemics, but we deem that such fears typically create trading opportunities, especially in the hardest-hit sectors. Similar to hotels (that we upgraded to neutral last week), airlines are part of the tourism-related industries that have suffered disproportionately. Were we not overweight the S&P airlines index, we would not hesitate to initiate such a position. True, consumer and business demand for air transportation services will come under pressure in the near-term, however, looking further out such demand destruction will likely prove transitory. The chart on the right highlights that the cyclical demand backdrop is robust for the US airline industry. Overall consumer outlays jumped recently, PCE services momentum is perking up, airfare PCE is outpacing overall consumer spending – an impressive feat – and consumer confidence is perched near cycle highs sustaining a wide gap with relative share prices. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P airlines index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5AIRLX – LUV, DAL, UAL, AAL, ALK. For additional details please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report.  

Highlights Global equities have benefited from the fact that the number of new coronavirus (COVID-19) cases continues to drift lower. Falling bond yields have also supported stocks. Nevertheless, risks remain. Even if the outbreak recedes, global growth is still set to fall to zero in the first quarter, before bouncing back over the remainder of the year. Thus, a near-term hit to corporate earnings now looks unavoidable. More worryingly, the possibility remains that the number of new cases will spike again as Chinese workers return to their jobs over the next few weeks. While we and others have compared the current outbreak to the SARS episode, a more relevant comparison could be the H1N1 (swine flu) outbreak of 2009-2010. Despite early efforts to contain it, 61 million Americans ended up catching the H1N1 virus, resulting in about 12,000 US deaths over a 12-month period. Globally, at least 150,000 people perished. It appears that the fatality rate from COVID-19 is significantly higher than for H1N1, though well below that of SARS and MERS. A full-blown pandemic with a fatality rate of 2% could lead to 20 million deaths worldwide. This would likely trigger a global downturn as deep as the Great Recession of 2008/09. The only consolation is that the recovery would be much more rapid than the one following the financial crisis. Although we are inclined to lean on the side of optimism, the truth is that neither we nor anyone else knows what the likelihood of such a pandemic scenario is. Thus, while we continue to maintain our positive 12-month view on global stocks, we recommend a more cautious near-term stance. Global Growth Set To Grind To A Halt In Q1 Based on the SARS example, we noted three weeks ago that risk assets were likely to bottom once the number of new coronavirus cases peaked. Sure enough, Chinese shares troughed on January 31st, just as the number of confirmed infections had begun to level off. The S&P 500 has been on a tear since then, hitting one record high after another (Chart 1). Falling bond yields have also supported stocks. Despite the decline in new infections, we think it is too early for investors to breathe a sigh of relief. For one thing, the economic data out of China remains abysmal. Real-time indicators of economic activity have been off-the-charts bad – much worse than what we saw during the SARS outbreak. While there has been some recovery in recent days, road congestion remains well below normal levels. In Shanghai, property sales are currently about four times lower than what is usual for this time of  year. Movie ticket sales have all but disappeared. Daily coal consumption, which tracks electricity consumption, has fallen by 70% (Chart 2). More than three-quarters of companies surveyed last week by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai said that they cannot run a full production line due to a lack of staff. Chart 1Just As In The SARS Episode, Stocks Bottomed Around The Same Time The Number Of Infections Peaked Just As In The SARS Episode, Stocks Bottomed Around The Same Time The Number Of Infections Peaked Just As In The SARS Episode, Stocks Bottomed Around The Same Time The Number Of Infections Peaked   Chart 2Chinese Daily Activity Has Fallen Off A Cliff Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus In our preliminary estimate of the impact of the virus on global growth, we penciled in zero growth for China on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1 of 2020, implying that the level of output in the first quarter would be the same as in the fourth quarter. Unfortunately, at this point, that looks far too optimistic. Chinese economic output will decline on a sequential basis. The only question is by how much. Despite the decline in new infections, we think it is too early for investors to breathe a sigh of relief. Chart 3 shows our updated baseline profile for global growth in Q1 and the remainder of this year. Assuming that production returns to normal over the coming weeks, it should be possible to limit the unannualized quarter-over-quarter decline in Chinese real GDP in Q1 to 1% (4% annualized). On a year-over-year basis (2020Q1 versus 2019Q1), this would drag Chinese growth down to 3.5%, the slowest pace in three decades. Relative to our earlier estimates, we expect larger spillover effects to the rest of the world, mainly stemming from the severe contraction in global tourism. Chart 3The Global Economy Will Come To A Standstill In Q1 Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus The direct and indirect effects of the outbreak should be enough to push global growth down to zero on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1. Under our baseline scenario, growth will recover in the second quarter, leaving the level of global GDP down 0.5 percentage points for the year as a whole compared to what would have transpired if the virus had never emerged.   The Calm Before The Storm? Even after this downgrade to our assessment, we still see the risks to global growth from the COVID-19 outbreak as being tilted to the downside. This largely reflects our concern that contrary to our baseline scenario, the outbreak could reintensify over the next few weeks as more Chinese workers return to their jobs. As the dire situation on the Diamond Princess cruiseliner docked in the port of Yokohama illustrates, the COVID-19 virus remains highly contagious. Despite numerous efforts by medical authorities to keep those on board at a safe distance from one another, 621 of the 3,011 passengers and crew aboard the ship who have been tested have been infected with the virus. Worryingly, the virus also appears to be contagious even when carriers are not showing any symptoms. Just this week, the Japanese media reported on a case where the son of an infected doctor tested positive for the virus even though he had last seen his father three days before the doctor started displaying symptoms.  While the number of new infections has fallen in China, new clusters have appeared elsewhere. South Korea just reported 73 new cases in a little more than two days. Iran disclosed two deaths from the virus in Qom, a holy city just outside Tehran that receives 20 million visitors annually. This suggests that there are probably at least 100 infected people in the city. The World Health Organization has estimated RO, the average number of people someone with the COVID-19 virus will infect, to be between 1.4 and 2.5. A recent survey of 12 studies found a larger mean RO of 3.28.1  An RO above one would produce an exponential increase in the number of cases. Heavy-handed quarantine measures such as those imposed by China could probably drive RO below one. However, some governments may not be able to implement such measures, and even if they could, they might not be sustainable for months on end.  The H1N1 (Swine Flu) Template? All this raises the possibility that the COVID-19 outbreak could end up resembling the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic of 2009-10. Despite initial hopes, early efforts to contain the H1N1 outbreak failed. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calculated that 61 million Americans caught the virus over the course of the proceeding 12 months, resulting in over 12,000 deaths. Globally, an estimated 700 million-to-1.4 billion people contracted the virus. A paper published in the Lancet put the number of fatalities worldwide at 151,700-to-575,400.2 The reason one hears less about H1N1 than SARS is that the latter killed 5%-to-10% of those who contracted it, whereas the former killed 0.01%-to-0.08%. Based on very preliminary evidence, it appears that the fatality rate from COVID-19 is significantly higher than for H1N1, though well below that of SARS, and lower still than for MERS, a particularly nasty strain of the coronavirus that killed about one-third of those who contracted it. That said, COVID-19’s true fatality rate remains highly uncertain. In Hubei province, the fatality rate is running at 3.1%. Elsewhere in China, it stands at 0.9%. Outside China, the fatality rate appears to be 0.5%. Part of the gap between Hubei and elsewhere may be due to greater underreporting of mild and moderate cases in the stricken province. However, it is also likely that Hubei’s higher fatality rate reflects the tremendous pressures its medical system is currently under. If the COVID-19 outbreak were to morph into a pandemic, such pressures would only escalate since medical resources from less-afflicted areas could no longer be deployed to fight every local breakout. The Economic Impact Of A Pandemic: Deep But Brief Chart 4The Private-Sector Surplus In Developed Economies Is In Good Shape The Private-Sector Surplus In Developed Economies Is In Good Shape The Private-Sector Surplus In Developed Economies Is In Good Shape Assuming the COVID-19 virus infects a billion people with a fatality rate of 2%, this would translate into 20 million deaths worldwide. Such a pandemic would rattle the global economy, leading to a recession as deep as the one in 2008/09. Demand for most items other than necessities would collapse. Business and leisure travel would fizzle. The global supply chain would seize up. The only consolation is that the recession would likely be followed by a vigorous “V-shaped” recovery. Sluggish “U-shaped” recoveries tend to occur when there are many imbalances that need to be worked off. For example, the recovery in the US following the Great Recession was impeded by the need for households to pare back debt and for the excess supply of newly built homes to be run down. Today, the larger developed economies are in decent shape. The private-sector financial balance in advanced economies – the difference between what the private sector earns and spends – stands at a surplus of 3.4% of GDP. In 2007, the private-sector financial balance fell to 0.4%, hitting a deficit of 2% in the US. The private-sector balance also deteriorated sharply in the lead-up to the 2001 recession (Chart 4). Chinese debt levels have soared over the past decade. However, it is worth noting that China’s private-sector financial surplus reached 7.1% of GDP in 2019 – higher than in Japan or Germany (Chart 5). Rather than suffering from excess debt levels, China suffers from excess savings. It is these excess savings that have forced the authorities to push state-owned companies and local governments to engage in debt-financed investment spending in order to prop up aggregate demand and employment. It is also these savings that will allow the government to stimulate the economy to prevent an outright economic collapse. Chart 5The Private Sector Spends Less Than It Earns In Most Economies Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Life Goes On… For Most Chart 6'Til Death Do Us Part Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus While it would take time, as horrific as a pandemic would be, most people would eventually adjust to living in a world where one’s longevity is less assured than it is today. That is the world in which humanity lived for centuries. It is also the world that prevailed during the Cold War. Keep in mind that in the US, an average 59 year-old man has a 1% chance of dying at some point within one year, and a 6% chance of dying over five years (Chart 6). Death is a part of life. As the virus circulates throughout the population, some people will perish. However, the vast majority will acquire immunity either by fighting off the disease or, if a vaccine becomes available later this year or in 2021, by being inoculated. All this will bring the pandemic to an end.  Investment Conclusions No one knows if the COVID-19 outbreak will recede or whether it will morph into a true pandemic. As macro strategists, all we can do is run through various scenarios and try to figure out the likely market impact. Chart 7Global Manufacturing Was On The Upswing Before The Outbreak Occurred Global Manufacturing Was On The Upswing Before The Outbreak Occurred Global Manufacturing Was On The Upswing Before The Outbreak Occurred If the number of new infections continues to decline, investors will likely look through the Q1 plunge in growth. Judging from the purchasing manager indices, global growth had already turned the corner in the weeks before the viral outbreak (Chart 7). With pent-up demand having accumulated in the intervening weeks, growth would bounce back in the second quarter. Under this benign scenario, equities still have upside, while bond yields will start rising again. As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar would also give up some of its recent gains. In a pandemic scenario, the recovery in growth will obviously be delayed. And when output does recover, it will be from significantly lower levels. Markets will end up going through their own version of Kubler-Ross' five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Unfortunately, before we reach the acceptance stage, global equities could easily fall by 20% from current levels. On balance, while we continue to lean on the side of optimism by maintaining our positive 12-month view on global stocks, we recommend a more cautious near-term stance until there is greater clarity as to how the outbreak will evolve.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Ying Liu, Albert A Gayle, Annelies Wilder-Smith, and Joacim Rocklöv, “The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus,” Journal of Travel Medicine, February 2020. 2 Please see Sundar S. Shrestha, et al., “Estimating the Burden of 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) in the United States (April 2009–April 2010),” Clinical Infectious Diseases (52:1), January 2011; Peter Doshi, “The 2009 Influenza Pandemic,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases (13:3), March 2013; and Heath Kelly, et al., “The Age-Specific Cumulative Incidence of Infection with Pandemic Influenza H1N1 2009 Was Similar in Various Countries Prior to Vaccination,” PLoS ONE 6(8), August 2011. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The COVID-19-induced demand shock in China – and a stronger USD – will reduce growth in global crude oil consumption to just over 1mm b/d this year, vs. earlier expectations of ~ 1.4mm b/d. Significant fiscal and monetary stimulus from China will be required to put economic growth back on track over the critical 2020-21 interval. An accommodative monetary-policy backdrop globally also will support demand. On the supply side, OPEC 2.0 likely will cut output by an additional 600k b/d in 2Q20, which will remove 2.3mm b/d off member states’ official quotas. For 2H20, we expect the coalition to revert to its 1.7mm b/d in cuts to keep markets balanced. US shale-oil output growth will continue to slow under market-imposed capital discipline. We are revising our baseline price forecasts in 2020 lower to $62/bbl and $58/bbl for Brent and WTI, respectively (Chart of the Week). This is down $5/bbl vs our previous forecast. Price risk is to the upside, however. 2021 Brent and WTI forecasts remain at $70/bbl and $66/bbl, respectively, as we do not expect long-lived demand destruction from the COVID-19 outbreak. A growing consensus around policy stimulus and production cuts makes us leery. Feature Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Knocks Oil Forecasts Lower COVID-19 Knocks Oil Forecasts Lower COVID-19 Knocks Oil Forecasts Lower COVID-19 continues to hammer Chinese oil demand, forcing refiners there to drastically reduce output. This crude oil is ending up in inventories, but, so far at least, overall storage capacity in China is not being maxed out by the unintended accumulations of crude and product inventories. Data are difficult to come by, but there are a few observations that provide some insight into the state of the refining market in China as the COVID-19 episode unfolds. Platt’s reported independent refiners in Shandong Province, which has ~ 3.4mm b/d of refining capacity, cut runs to a four-year low of ~ 40% of capacity this month, down from a January rate of 63.5%. Shandong refiners represent 50%-60% of China’s independent refining capacity.1 We estimate EM demand – led by downward revisions in China – will fall by ~900k b/d in 1Q20 – when most of the damage to the economy likely will occur – and by an average 300k b/d for the year vs. our previous estimates. Ursa Space Systems’ radar satellite monitoring of inventories close to coastal refineries indicated Chinese oil storage at the beginning of the month was at 60% of capacity.2 This figure likely is higher, given refinery runs remain low, but it does not yet suggest storage capacity in China will be exhausted in the near future. In our modeling of the COVID-19 impact on oil demand, we estimate EM demand – led by downward revisions in China – will fall by ~900k b/d in 1Q20 – when most of the damage to the economy likely will occur – and by an average 300k b/d for the year vs. our previous estimates. This leads us to believe EM oil demand will increase by 1mm b/d this year, down from our earlier expectation of 1.26mm b/d pre-COVID-19. For DM economies, demand growth also will disappoint, revised down by 100k b/d on the back of a warmer-than-expected winter and stop-and-go growth in manufacturing induced by COVID-19. Policy Stimulus Will Revive Chinese Demand The COVID-19 outbreak will result in a significant hit to China’s GDP, which will require substantial stimulus to put growth back on a 6% p.a. track this year. This growth rate is required for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to deliver on its pledge to double GDP and per-capita income over 2010-20, a pledge that was memorialized in writing following the Party’s 2012 Congress. In addition, next year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CCP, and, we believe, it is an all-but-foregone conclusion the Party’s leadership will not want a faltering economy on display as it celebrates this important milestone. Given these considerations, the possibility policymakers will over-stimulate the economy to get it back on track is a non-trivial upside risk.3 We do not think it is unreasonable to expect policymakers to lean into reviving growth this year and next with policy stimulus. Our baseline 2020 forecast envisions prices will falter somewhat versus our previous expectation – with Brent averaging $62/bbl this year, and WTI trading $4/bbl below that, vs. $67/bbl and $63/bbl previously. We are mindful of the impact Chinese policy stimulus can have on the global oil markets. The effects on GDP growth following demand shocks of past stimulus can be seen in the response of China’s GDP following the 2003 SARS outbreak; the 2008-09 GFC; the 2011-12 eurozone debt crisis; and even in China’s 2015-16 slowdown (Chart 2). For this reason, we do not think it is unreasonable to expect policymakers to lean into reviving growth this year and next with policy stimulus. And it is for this reason that we believe price risk tilts to the upside this year. Our updated Ensemble price forecast includes two additional demand-side simulations to assess its sensitivity to changes in EM oil demand: Chart 2Chinese Stimulus Will Support Oil Demand Chinese Stimulus Will Support Oil Demand Chinese Stimulus Will Support Oil Demand Higher EM demand scenario (20% weight): We model the impact of the coronavirus as short-lived, with only a temporary impact on China’s economy. Consumer demand and industrial production in China converge to pre-COVID-19 levels rapidly in 2H20. Chinese policymakers overstimulate in 2Q20, over fears the virus could have severe long-term consequences on the economy. This scenario assumes EM demand increases by 100k b/d vs. our base case in 2020 and 2021. Lower EM demand scenario (10% weight): We model the impact of the coronavirus as a severe and long-lasting event. This triggers a negative feedback loop for EM oil demand; collapsing demand forces production lower, which reduces employment and pushes demand further down. This reverberates to other EM economies and affects global supply chains. This scenario assumes EM demand decreases by 240k b/d in 2020 and returns to our base case in 2021, supported by China stimulus. Oil-Demand Reduction (Not Destruction) The outbreak also is contributing to greater global economic uncertainty, which continues to support the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB). The COVID-19 outbreak in China caused us to reduce our expectation for global oil demand growth by ~ 360k b/d, taking 2020 year-on-year growth to ~ 1.04mm b/d, versus our earlier expectation of 1.4mm b/d. The outbreak also is contributing to greater global economic uncertainty, which continues to support the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB). Dollar strength produces a headwind for EM GDP growth, which suppresses oil-demand growth. The combination of the COVID-19-induced demand reduction and the stronger USD TWIB likely will compel OPEC 2.0 to maintain its production discipline until the global policy uncertainty abates and the USD TWIB retreats. Such a reversal in trend would become a tailwind for commodity demand (Chart 3). Chart 3Global Economic Uncertainty Keeps A Bid Under USD TWIB Global Economic Uncertainty Keeps A Bid Under USD TWIB Global Economic Uncertainty Keeps A Bid Under USD TWIB Global supply growth will continue to be constrained by demands from investors to return capital to shareholders. We expect the hit to global demand to be offset by increased production cuts from OPEC 2.0, which will be agreed next month. OPEC 2.0 production also will be impacted by continued output losses in Iran and Venezuela, which have seen y/y production fall by ~ 1.8mm b/d in 2019. Global supply growth will continue to be constrained by demands from investors to return capital to shareholders – via stock buybacks – and for steady and increasing dividends to make their equity competitive with alternative sectors (e.g., tech). These capital-market pressures – in addition to growing pressure from Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investors – will continue to have a profound effect on capital availability for oil and gas E+P companies for decades to come. This is a theme we will return to often in future research. We summarize these supply-demand dynamics in Chart 4. For OPEC 2.0, the 1.7mm b/d reduction in output the coalition agreed for 1Q20 remains in place, as do losses from Iran and Venezuela. For 2Q20, we assume the coalition adds another 600k b/d of production cuts. After that, we assume OPEC 2.0 reverts to its earlier production cuts of 1.7mm b/d for 2H20. In 2021, we assume OPEC 2.0 takes production cuts back down to 1.2mm b/d in January 2021, then gradually increases its production over 1H21 to balance the market and to avoid spiking prices. We also expect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to remove 300k b/d of overcompliance next year, as markets tighten. In 2H21, we see OPEC 2.0 production levels remaining flat at ~ 44.8mm b/d (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Chart 4Supply-Demand Balances Supply-Demand Balances Supply-Demand Balances Chart 5Global Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Global Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing Global Oil Inventories Will Resume Drawing For 2021, we are leaving our Brent forecast unchanged at $70/bbl, and WTI at $66/bbl. For the US, we reduced our Lower 48 production assumptions, and now have 740k b/d growth in 2020 and 300k b/d in 2021. Shales account for almost all of this increase. We also include a scenario in which US production comes in lower in our ensemble forecast. These fundamentals combine to put global oil inventories back on a downward trajectory in 2H20 (Chart 5). That said, there is an important caveat going into 2H20: If the US Economic Policy Uncertainty Index starts rising in 2H20 on the back of US election risks, markets will continue to price in a stronger USD in 2020 vs. what we now expect. For 2021, we are leaving our Brent forecast unchanged at $70/bbl, and WTI at $66/bbl. Odds favor a return to the pre-COVID-19 price trajectory for oil next year, with continued upside risk from Chinese fiscal and monetary stimulus, and a globally accommodative monetary-policy backdrop. Higher Spare Capacity Reduces Risk Premium The market remains partly balanced by OPEC 2.0’s production cuts. This means that the group’s spare capacity is increasing, reducing the risk premium the market typically includes in crude oil prices to reflect sudden output losses. The risk premium in oil prices evaporated following the drop in demand and the increase in spare capacity due to the large OPEC 2.0 cuts. When China’s economy resumes its normal activity, demand will pick up and the market will balance, increasing the impact of possible supply disruptions. However, the market remains partly balanced by OPEC 2.0’s production cuts. This means that the group’s spare capacity is increasing, reducing the risk premium the market typically includes in crude oil prices to reflect sudden output losses. In addition, if production capacity of ~ 300k-500k b/d in the Neutral Zone shared by KSA and Kuwait is restored, the risk premium could drop even lower, given this production is expected to be retained as spare capacity. If this is the case we could have lower prices in 2020 vs. our current forecast (down to ~ $60/bbl). We will be exploring the changes in OPEC 2.0 spare capacity and the consequences for overall production in future research. Bottom Line: Assisted by Chinese policy stimulus, oil demand will recover this year from the COVID-19-induced demand shock. On the supply side, the combination of deeper OPEC 2.0 production cuts – which we expect will be settled at the upcoming March meeting – and capital-market-imposed reduction in US oil production will push oil markets to a supply deficit. The ongoing demand shock forces us to reduce our 2020 Brent price forecast to $62/bbl from $67/bbl previously. For 2021, we maintain our $70/bbl target. Risks to our view are mounting. Three crucial pieces to our 2020 and 2021 expectations remain uncertain: The duration and magnitude of the impact of the coronavirus shock, The level of production cuts by OPEC 2.0 and the degree of compliance by all members, and The trajectory of the US dollar – if global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated the USD could remain well bid, which would continue to pressure EM GDP growth – and commodity demand – at the margin. Our base case remains that prices will rise from here, but our conviction level is slightly lower. One reason for this is the apparent consensus emerging around the likelihood of Chinese stimulus and OPEC 2.0 production cuts. If either of these assumptions prove wrong, oil prices likely would move lower.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight As of Tuesday’s close, Brent prices were up 8% from their Feb 10 low of $53.27/bbl, supported by receding COVID-19 fears and rising expectations OPEC 2.0 will deepen its production cuts at its March meeting. Earlier this week, oil prices received an additional lift from the newly-imposed US sanctions on Rosneft Trading SA – a subsidiary of Russia’s state-own company – for its activities with Venezuela’s PDVSA. Rosneft Trading intensified its involvement in Venezuela’s oil sector and now handles the majority of the country’s crude exports, providing vital support to the Maduro government. The US restrictions include a 90-day wind-down period for companies to end their activities with Rosneft Trading. Base Metals: Neutral Chinese steel consumption – which accounts for ~50% of global demand – has been hit hard by the coronavirus outbreak. Steel and iron ore prices in China plunged 11% and 3% YTD (Chart 6). Steel mills’ inventories increased to record levels, reaching full capacity. Mills are now forced to export their surplus at reduced prices – flooding seaborne steel markets – or to cut output. Accordingly, more than 33% of steel mills are considering cutting steel production, according to a recent Platts survey. Margins at producing mills are declining and could harm high-grade iron ore prices. This is a short-term risk to our view. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices surged past $1,600/oz on Tuesday – overlooking positive manufacturing data in the US. Silver shadowed gold’s movement, closing at $18.13/oz. Precious metals are bought as insurance against risks of a wider-than-expected spread of the coronavirus and should remain well bid until uncertainty dissipates. Gold is somewhat overbought based on sentiment, momentum and technical indicators (Chart 7). If, as we expect, the daily increase in confirmed cases ex-Hubei slows meaningfully over the coming months, gold and silver prices will lose some steam. Ags/Softs:  Underweight CBOT March wheat futures surged 4.4% on Tuesday after Australia’s government sharply lowered its estimate of the country’s wheat harvest as severe drought affected crops. The Australian agricultural agency said the crop totaled 15.17 mm MT, the lowest since 2008, paving the way for stronger US exports. Corn also moved higher, with the prompt contract gaining 1.26% on the back of a new round of Chinese tariff exemptions on US goods. A USDA report showed US soybean export inspections bound for China were still half of last year's volumes. Soybeans futures closed 1.25 cents lower at $8.915/bu as markets await large Chinese purchases of US soybeans. Chart 6Increasing Inventories Pressure Steel and Iron ore Prices Increasing Inventories Pressure Steel and Iron ore Prices Increasing Inventories Pressure Steel and Iron ore Prices Chart 7Gold Technical Indicators Signal Overbought Market Gold Technical Indicators Signal Overbought Market Gold Technical Indicators Signal Overbought Market     footnotes 1     Please see China's Shandong independent refiners cut run rates to 4-year low of 40% in Feb, published by S&P Global Platts February 13, 2020. 2     Please see Oil demand falls on coronavirus: how much will inventories rise? posted by Ursa Space Systems February 7, 2020. 3     Please see Iron Ore, Steel Poised For Rally, published January 13, 2020, for a discussion of the significance of 2020 vis-à-vis the Communist Party’s pledge to double GDP and per-capita income vs. 2010 levels, memorialized by the CCP at its 2012 Peoples Congress.  We also discuss the 100th anniversary of the Party’s founding next year, which also will be a significant milestone for the CCP – and another reason the Party will not want the Chinese economy faltering as it is celebrated.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20 Oil Demand Should Recover In 2H20

Highlights Analyses on Asian semis, Argentina and Russia are available on pages 7, 12 and 14, respectively. The most likely trajectory for Chinese growth will be as follows: the initial plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that quick rebound will probably be followed by weaker growth. Financial markets will soon focus on growth beyond the temporary rebound. In our opinion, it will be weaker than markets are currently pricing. Thus, risks for EM risk assets and currencies are skewed to the downside. A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if EM corporate bond yields rise. In this week’s report we discuss what it will take for EM corporate credit spreads to widen. Feature The downside risks to EM risk assets and currencies are growing. We continue to recommend underweighting EM equities, credit and currencies versus their DM counterparts. Today we are initiating a short position in EM stocks in absolute terms. Chart I-1 illustrates that the total return index (including carry) of EM ex-China currencies versus the US dollar has failed to break above its 2019 highs, and has rolled over decisively.  In contrast, the trade-weighted US dollar has exhibited a bullish technical configuration by rebounding from its 200-day moving average (Chart I-2). Odds are the dollar will make new highs. An upleg in the greenback will foreshadow a relapse in EM financial markets. Chart I-1EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates Chart I-2The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market   Growth Trajectory After The Dust Settles The evolution of the coronavirus remains highly uncertain and unpredictable. As with any pandemic or virus outbreak, its evolution will be complex with non-trivial odds of a second wave. Even under the assumption that the epidemic will be fully contained by the end of March, its economic impact on the Chinese and Asian economies will likely be greater than global financial markets are currently pricing. As investors come to the realization that this initial pick-up in economic activity after the virus outbreak will be followed by weaker growth, the odds of a selloff in equities and credit markets will rise. In our January 30 report titled Coronavirus Versus SARS: Mind The Economic Differences, we argued that using the framework from the SARS outbreak to analyze the current epidemic is inappropriate. First, only a small portion of the Chinese economy was shut down in 2003, and for a brief period of time. The current closures and limited operations are much more widespread and likely more prolonged. Table I-1China’s Importance Now And In 2003 EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown Second, China accounts for a substantially larger share of the global economy today than it did in 2003 (Table I-1). Hence, the global business cycle is presently much more sensitive to demand and production in the mainland than it was during the SARS outbreak. Global financial markets have rebounded following the initial selloff in late January on expectations that the Chinese and global economies will experience a V-shaped recovery. In last week’s report, we discussed why the odds favor a tepid recovery for the Chinese business cycle and global trade. The main point of last week’s report was as follows: with the median company and household in China being overleveraged, any reduction in cash flow or income will undermine their ability to service their debt and will dent their confidence for some time. Hence, consumption, investment and hiring over the next several months will be negatively affected, even after the outbreak is contained. This in turn will diminish the multiplier effect of policy stimulus in China. Chart I-3Our Expectations Of China’s Business Cycle EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown The most likely pattern for Chinese growth will likely resemble the trajectory demonstrated in Chart I-3. It assumes the plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that snap-back will likely be followed by weaker growth, for reasons discussed in last week’s report. Equity and credit markets in Asia and worldwide have been sanguine because they have so far focused exclusively on expectations of a sharp rebound. As investors come to the realization that this initial pick-up in economic activity will be followed by weaker growth, the odds of a selloff in equities and credit markets will rise. Bottom Line: The most likely trajectory for Chinese and Asian growth will be as follows: the initial plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that quick rebound will probably be followed by weaker growth. Financial markets are not pricing in this scenario. Thus, risks are skewed to the downside for EM risk assets and currencies. The Missing Ingredient For An Equity Selloff The missing ingredient for a selloff in EM equities is rising EM corporate bond yields. Chart I-4 illustrates that bear markets in EM stocks typically occur when EM US dollar corporate bond yields are rising. Hence, what matters for the direction of EM share prices is not risk-free rates/yields but EM corporate borrowing costs. Chart I-4The Destiny Of EM Equities Is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields The Destiny Of EM Equities is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields The Destiny Of EM Equities is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields EM (and US) corporate bond yields can rise under the following circumstances: (1) when US Treasury yields are ascending more than corporate credit spreads are tightening; (2) when credit spreads are widening more than Treasury yields are falling; or (3) when both government bond yields and corporate credit spreads are increasing simultaneously. Provided the backdrop of weaker growth is bullish for government bonds, presently corporate bond yields can only rise if credit spreads widen by more than the drop in Treasury yields. In short, the destiny of EM equities currently relies on corporate spreads. A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if their respective corporate bond yields rise. From a historical perspective, EM and US corporate credit spreads are currently extremely tight (Chart I-5). A China-related growth scare could trigger a widening in EM corporate credit spreads. As this occurs, corporate bond yields will climb, causing share prices to plummet. EM corporate spreads have historically been correlated with EM exchange rates, the global/Chinese business cycle, and commodities prices (Chart I-6). The Chinese property market plays an especially pivotal role for the outlook of EM corporate spreads. Chart I-5EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame Chart I-6EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices   First, offshore bonds issued by mainland property developers account for a large share of the EM corporate bond index. Chart I-7China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing Second, swings in China’s property markets often drive the mainland’s business cycle and its demand for resources, chemicals and industrial machinery. In turn, Chinese imports of commodities affect both economic growth and exchange rates of EM ex-China. Finally, the latter two determine the direction of EM ex-China corporate spreads. China’s construction activity and property developers were struggling before the coronavirus outbreak (Chart I-7). Given their high debt burden, the ongoing plunge in new property sales and their cash flow will not only weigh on their debt sustainability but also force them to curtail construction activity. The latter will continue suppressing commodities prices. The sensitivity of EM corporate spreads to these variables have in recent years diminished because of the unrelenting search for yield by global investors. As QE policies by DM central banks have removed some $9 trillion of high-quality securities from circulation, the volume of securities available in the markets has shrunk. This has distorted historical correlations of EM corporate spreads with their fundamental drivers – namely, China’s construction activity, commodities prices, EM exchange rates and the global trade cycle. Nonetheless, EM corporate credit spreads’ sensitivity to these variables has diminished, but has not vanished outright. If EM currencies depreciate meaningfully, commodities prices plunge and China’s growth and the global trade cycle disappoint, odds are that EM corporate spreads will widen. Given that credit markets are already in overbought territory, any selloff could trigger a cascading effect, resulting in meaningful credit-spread widening. Bottom Line: A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if their respective corporate bond yields rise. The timing is uncertain, but the odds of EM corporate credit spreads widening are mounting as Chinese growth underwhelms, commodities prices drop and EM currencies depreciate. If these trends persist, they will push EM shares prices over the cliff. As to today’s recommendation to short the EM stock index, we anticipate at least a 10% selloff in EM stocks in US-dollar terms. For currency investors, we are maintaining our shorts in a basket of EM currencies versus the dollar. This basket includes the BRL, CLP, COP, ZAR, KRW, IDR and PHP. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Are Semiconductor Stocks Facing An Air Pocket? Global semiconductor share prices have continued to hit new highs, even though there has not been any recovery (positive growth) in global semiconductor sales or in their corporate earnings (EPS). The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020 will trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. Global semiconductor sales bottomed on a rate-of-change basis in June, but their annual growth rate was still negative in December. In the meantime, global semi share prices have been rallying since January 2019. This divergence between stock prices and revenue of global semiconductor stocks is unprecedented (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Global Semiconductor Market: Sales & Share Prices Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Global Semiconductor Market: Sales & Share Prices Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Odds are that global semi stocks in general, and Asian ones in particular, will experience a pullback in the coming weeks. The coronavirus outbreak will likely dampen expectations related to the speed of 5G adoption and penetration in China. Critically, China accounted for 35% of global semiconductor sales in 2019, versus 19% for the US and 10% for the whole of Europe. In brief, semiconductor demand from China is now greater than the US and European demand combined. Furthermore, the latest news that the US administration is considering changing its regulations to prevent shipments of semiconductor chips to China’s Huawei Technologies from global companies - including Taiwan's TSMC - could hurt chip stocks further. Since Huawei Technologies is the global leader in 5G networks and smartphones, the ban, if implemented, will instigate a sizable setback to 5G adoption in China and elsewhere. Table II-1Industry Forecasts Of The 2020 Global 5G- Smartphone Shipments EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown EM: Growing Risk Of A Breakdown Our updated estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments is between 160 million and 180 million units in 2020, which is below the median of industry expectations of 210 million units (Table II-1). The key reasons why the industry’s expectations are unreasonably high, in our opinion, are as follows: Chinese demand for new smartphones will likely stay weak (Chart II-2). The mainland smartphone market has become extremely saturated, with 1.3 billion units having been sold in just the past three years – nearly equaling the entire Chinese population. Chinese official data show that each Chinese household owned 2.5 phones on average in 2018, and that the average household size was about three persons (Chart II-3). This suggests that going forward nearly all potential phone demand in China is for replacement phones, and that there is no urgent need for households to buy new phones. Chart II-2Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chart II-3Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone   The Chinese government’s boost to 5G infrastructure investment will likely increase annual installed 5G base stations from 130,000 units last year to about 600,000 to 800,000 this year. However, the total number of 5G base stations will still only account for about 7-9% of total base stations in China in 2020. Hence, geographical coverage will not be sufficiently wide enough to warrant a very high rate of 5G smartphone adoption and penetration. From Chinese consumers’ perspectives, a 5G phone in 2020 will be a ‘nice-to-have,’ but not a ‘must-have.’ Given increasing economic uncertainty and many concerns related to the use of 5G phones, mainland consumers may delay their purchases into 2021 when 5G phone networks will have more geographic coverage.  The number of 5G phone models on the market is expanding, but not that quickly. Consumers may take their time to wait for more models to hit the market before making a 5G phone purchase. For example, Apple will release four 5G phone models, but only in September 2020. Moreover, the price competition between 5G and 4G phones is getting increasingly intense. Smartphone producers have already started to cut prices of their 4G phones aggressively. For example, the price of Apple’s iPhone XS, released in September 2018, has already dropped by about 50% in China. Outside of China, 5G infrastructure development will be much slower. The majority of developed countries will likely give in to pressure from the US and limit their use of Huawei 5G equipment. This will delay infrastructure installation and adoption of 5G throughout the rest of the world because Huawei has the leading and cheapest 5G technology. In 2019, China accounted for about 70% of worldwide 5G smartphone shipments. We reckon that in 2020 Chinese 5G smartphone shipments will be between 120 million and 130 million units. Assuming this accounts for about 70-75% of the world shipment of 5G phones this year, we arrive at our estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments of between 160 million and 180 million units. We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections. Overall, investors are pricing global semi stocks using the pace and trajectory of 4G smartphones adoption. However, in 2020 the number and speed of 5G phone penetration will continue lagging that of 4G ones when the latter were introduced in December 2013 (Chart II-4). We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary, and its adoption and penetration will surge in the coming years. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections (Chart II-5).  Chart II-4China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G Chart II-5Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic? Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic? Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic?   Investment Implications Global semi stocks’ valuations are very elevated, as shown in Chart II-6 and Chart II-7. Besides, semi stocks are overbought, suggesting they could correct meaningfully if lofty growth expectations currently baked into their prices do not materialize in the first half of this year. Chart II-6Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Chart II-7Global Semi Stocks’ Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated   The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020, along with US pressure on global semi producers not to sell to Huawei, will likely trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. We recommend patiently waiting for a better entry point for absolute return investors. Within the EM equity universe, we have not been underweight Asian semi stocks because of our negative outlook for the overall EM equity benchmark. The Argentine government will drag out foreign debt negotiations with the IMF and foreign private creditors to secure a more favorable settlement. We remain neutral on Taiwan and overweight Korea. The reason is that DRAM makers such as Samsung and Hynix have rallied much less than TSMC. Besides, geopolitical risks in relation to Taiwan in general and TSMC in particular are rising, warranting a more defensive stance on Taiwanese stocks relative to Korean equities. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Argentina’s Eternal Tango With Foreign Creditors Chart III-1Downside Risks To Bond Prices Downside Risks to Bond Prices Downside Risks to Bond Prices Our view remains that debt negotiations will be drawn-out because the Argentine government is both unwilling and lacks the financial capacity to service public foreign debt. The administration’s recent attitude toward foreign creditors and the IMF have startled markets: sovereign Eurobond bond prices have tanked (Chart III-1). The reasons why the Fernandez administration will play tough ball with creditors and the IMF are as follows: The country’s foreign funding and the public sector debt situations are precarious. Hence, the lower the recovery rate they negotiate with creditors, the more funds will be available to expand social programs and secure domestic political support. Given Fernandez’s and Peronist’s voter base, the government is inclined to please the population at expense of foreign creditors. Moreover, Alberto Fernandez is facing increasing scrutiny from radical Peronists, who want to dissolve the debt altogether. Vice-president Fernandez de Kirchner stated that Argentina should not pay international agents until the economy escapes a recession. To further add to creditors’ frustration, the government has yet to announce a comprehensive economic plan to revive the economy and service outstanding debt. The public foreign currency debt burden is unsustainable – its level stands at $250 billion, about 4 times larger than exports. The country is still in a recession, and economic indicators do not show much improvement. Committing to fiscal austerity to service foreign debt would entail further economic suffering for Argentine businesses and households, something Fernandez rejected throughout his campaign. The authorities are singularly focused on reviving the economy: government expenditures have grown by over 50% annually under the current administration (Chart III-2). Crucially, Argentina has already achieved a large trade surplus and its current account balance is approaching zero (Chart III-3). Assuming exports stay flat, the economy can afford to maintain its current level of imports. This makes the authorities less willing to compromise and more inclined to adopt a tough stance in debt negotiations. Chart III-2Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Chart III-3Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced   The risk of this negotiation strategy is that the nation will not be able to raise foreign funding for a while. Nevertheless, the country is currently de facto not receiving any external financing. Hence, this risk is less pressing. Moreover, the administration has already delayed all US$ bond payments until August. This allows them to extend negotiations with creditors over the next six months, thereby increasing uncertainty and further pushing down bond prices. A lower market price on Argentine bonds is beneficial for the government’s negotiation strategy as it implies lower expectations for foreign creditors. Thus, the Fernandez administration’s strategy will be to play hardball and draw-out negotiations as long as possible. We expect Argentina to reach a settlement with creditors no earlier than in the third quarter of this year and at recovery rates below current prices of the nation’s Eurobonds. Russian financial assets will be supported due to improving public sector governance, accelerating domestic demand growth and healthy macro fundamentals. Bottom Line: The government will drag out foreign debt negotiations with the IMF and foreign private creditors to secure a more favorable settlement. Continue to underweight Argentine financial assets over the next several months. Juan Egaña Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Russia: Harvesting The Benefits Of Macro Orthodoxy Russian financial markets have shown resilience in face of falling oil prices. This has been the upshot of the nation’s prudent macro policies in recent years. We have been positive on Russia and overweight Russian markets over the past two years and this stance remains intact. Going forward, Russian financial assets will be supported due to improving public sector governance, accelerating domestic demand growth and healthy macro fundamentals: Fiscal policy will be relaxed substantially – both infrastructure and social spending will rise. Specifically, the Kremlin is eager to ramp up the national projects program. This is bullish for domestic demand. Russia’s public finances are currently in a very healthy state. Public debt (14% of GDP) is minimal and foreign public debt (4% of GDP) is tiny. The overall fiscal balance is in large surplus (2.7% of GDP). The current account is also in surplus. Hence, a major boost in fiscal spending will not undermine Russia’s macro stability for some time. As a major sign of policy change, President Putin has sidelined or reduced the authority of policymakers who have been advocating tight fiscal policy. This policy change has been overdue as fiscal policy has been unreasonably tight for longer than required (Chart IV-1). Chart IV-1Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Importantly, the recent changes at the highest levels of government are also positive for governance and productivity. The new Prime Minister Mishustin has earned this appointment for his achievements as the head of the federal tax authority. He has restructured and reorganized the tax department in a way that has boosted its efficiency/productivity substantially and increased tax collection. By promoting him to the head of government, Putin has boosted Mishustin’s authority to reform the entire federal governance system. Given his record of accomplishment, odds are that the new prime minister will succeed in implementing some reforms and restructuring. Thereby, productivity growth that has been stagnant in Russia for a decade could revive modestly. Also, Putin was reluctant to boost infrastructure spending as he was afraid of money being misappropriated without a proper monitoring system. Putin now hopes Mishustin can introduce an efficient governance system of fiscal spending to assure infrastructure projects can be realized with reasonably minimal losses. As to monetary policy, real interest rates are still very high. The prime lending rate is 10%, the policy rate is 6% and nominal GDP growth is 3.3% (Chart IV-2). Weak growth (Chart IV-3) and low inflation will encourage the central bank to continue cutting interest rates. Chart IV-2Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Chart IV-3Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish   Finally, the economy does not have any structural excesses and imbalances. The central bank has done a good job in cleansing the banking system and the latter is in healthy shape. Bottom Line: The ruble will be supported by improving productivity, cyclical growth acceleration and a healthy fiscal position. We continue recommending overweighting Russian stocks, local currency bonds and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Last week, we also recommended a new trade: Short Turkish bank stocks / long Russian bank stocks. The main risk to the absolute performance of Russian markets is another plunge in oil prices and a broad selloff in EM. On November 14, 2019 we recommended absolute return investors to go long Russian local currency bonds and short oil. This strategy remains intact. Finally, we have been recommending the long ruble / short Colombian peso trade since May 31, 2018. This position has generated large gains and we are reiterating it. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Chinese policymakers will deliver more growth-supporting measures in the coming months, but Chinese government bond yields have already priced in a much weaker economic slowdown and a more aggressive policy response. While we think monetary policy may get even looser in the very near term, there is limited potential for the short-end of the Chinese government bond yield curve to remain at such low levels. The PBoC’s recent liquidity injections are mostly a preventive measure to avoid an acute cash crunch in the real economy, and the historical path following the 2003 SARS outbreak suggests the additional monetary easing action is unlikely to be sustained over the coming 6-12 months. As such, Chinese government bond yields will rebound in expectation of better economic conditions and more restrictive monetary conditions. On a cyclical basis, we continue to overweight Chinese equities over government bonds. Feature Chinese bond yields have declined sharply over the past two weeks, as investors weighed both the economic consequences of the Covid-19 outbreak and the likelihood of more accommodative monetary policy. Following the extended Chinese New Year holiday, China’s central bank (PBoC) has carried out five cash injections, pumping nearly 3 trillion yuan into the interbank market (Chart 1). It also lowered the de jure policy rate - the 7-day reverse repo rate - by 10bps to cut the cost of funding for commercial banks. The 3-month SHIBOR (which trades very closely to the 3-month repo rate), which we have long viewed as China’s de facto short-term policy rate, quickly reversed its January rise and fell back to its July-2018 low (Chart 2). Chart 1Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Chart 2Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks The PBoC’s aggressive easing measures of late have sparked market speculation that China is entering another major monetary and credit easing cycle, and that a government bond rally is well underway with even lower yields to come. Chart 3Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields In our January 29 Special Report1 on China’s government bond market, we discussed how there has been a strong relationship in the past decade between unexpected changes in the 3-month SHIBOR and the long-end of China’s government bond yields. In order for the current rally in government securities to be sustained, investors need to believe that the PBoC’s easing measures are here to stay and that there will be additional policy rate cuts in the months to come (Chart 3). There are indications that Chinese policymakers are looking to deliver more growth-supporting measures over the coming months. However, it is likely that the current bond rally will be a near-term event rather than a cyclical (6-12 months) trend. Therefore, on a cyclical time horizon, we continue to recommend overweighting Chinese stocks versus Chinese government bonds and would advise against an aggressively long duration stance. Has The Covid-19 Epidemic Peaked? The fact that the number of new suspected cases is also in decline sends a signal that the outbreak outside Hubei may have largely been contained.  Chart 4Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Investors appear to concur with our view that the Covid-19 outbreak has largely become a Hubei-specific crisis.2 Chinese stocks in the onshore and offshore markets have recovered more than half of the losses from their bottom on February 3, when the number of new cases outside of the Hubei epicenter reached a tentative peak. The 12-month change in the yields of Chinese 3 and 10-year government bonds also inched up since then (Chart 4). While the Chinese government’s rollout of supportive measures, including liquidity injections and policy rate cuts since early February might have helped improve market sentiment, the fact the epidemic outside Hubei province seems to be contained also helps explain the bottom in equity prices and bond yields. In addition, the number of new suspected cases outside Hubei province has trended down since February 9 (Chart 5). The diagnosis methodology was recently revised to include suspects with clinical symptoms, regardless of whether they had a history of contact with infected cases from Wuhan. This new methodology has lowered the bar for registering newly suspected cases. While the situation surrounding the Covid-19 outbreak is still fluid, the fact that the number of new suspected cases is also in decline sends a signal that the outbreak outside Hubei may have largely been contained. Bottom Line: Outside of the epicenter, the Covid-19 outbreak may have peaked. This means the fear element driving down Chinese government bond yields may soon end. Chart 5The Situation Continues To Get Better Outside Of The Epicenter Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Current Bond Rally Unlikely A Cyclical Play Bond yields now appear to have largely priced in a delayed economic recovery and more aggressive policy response. We think the current rally in Chinese government bonds will thus only be a short-term event rather than a cyclical (6-12 month) play. The rally in China’s government bond market since mid-2018 was largely driven by market expectations of a significant slowdown in the Chinese economy, and a much easier monetary policy in responding to a slowing Chinese domestic demand and a protracted Sino-US trade war. Bond market is pricing in a 2015-2016-style economic slowdown and a policy response that is more aggressive than four years ago. Cyclically, we think both of these factors are absent from the current situation, and a normalization back to the pre-outbreak monetary stance may come earlier than the market expects. In the last two weeks, Chinese government bond markets have discounted a sharp slowdown in economic activity; 10-year Chinese government bond yields are back below 3.0% for the first time since 2016 and the 3-month SHIBOR is now 25bps lower than the bottom in 2015-2016 (Chart 6). This suggests the market is pricing in a 2015-2016-style economic slowdown and a policy response that is more aggressive than four years ago. The nature of the current situation, as we pointed out in our previous reports,3 represents a temporary delay rather than a derailing of an economic recovery in China.  The Covid-19 outbreak and the unprecedented containment measures paused the Chinese economy in the first quarter, just as it was coming off of a two-year soft patch. But domestic demand was not nearly as weak as in 2015-2016 before the outbreak (Chart 7). Chart 6Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Chart 7A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak Chart 8The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing If the virus is contained outside of the epicenter in the next couple of weeks and the hit to China’s overall economy is limited to Q1, then the PBoC will likely normalize policy back to its pre-outbreak stance. While the PBoC is generally a reactive central bank and has historically lagged a pickup in economic activity, it was proactive in normalizing its monetary policy following short-term shocks. Chart 8 shows the historical path of 3-month SHIBOR in the year following a bottom in economic activity in 2009, 2012, and 2015.  In all three economic slowdowns, there has not been a significant rise in interbank rates in the first nine months of an economic recovery. Following the SARS outbreak, however, the PBoC reversed its easy stance and significantly tightened liquidity conditions in the banking system only four months after the peak of the SARS outbreak. While we do not expect the PBoC to shift into a tightening mode this year, a shift back to the pre-outbreak policy trajectory sometime in Q2 is highly likely, provided the Covid-19 outbreak is contained outside of Hubei province.  In turn, Chinese government bond yields will rebound in expectation of better economic conditions and more restrictive monetary conditions. PBoC is also unlikely to open a liquidity floodgate. Despite large liquidity injections in the past two weeks, we are not convinced that the PBoC intends to fully open the liquidity tap in the interbank market.  So far, most of the financial support measures have been a combination of targeted low-cost funding to non-financial corporations and fiscal subsidies to local governments and businesses. This differs from 2015-2016 when the PBoC aggressively cut interbank rates and the 1-year benchmark lending rate, and kept excessive liquidity in the interbank system for a prolonged period (Chart 9). As Chart 9 (bottom panel) shows, PBoC’s net fund injections have been extremely volatile since Covid-19 erupted in January. This suggests that while the PBoC has added large doses of liquidity into the interbank market, demand for financial support in the banking system has mostly matched or even outstripped supply. In other words, the PBoC is not flooding the interbank system with cash, rather it is preventing an outbreak-induced illiquidity issue from turning into a widespread insolvency problem.  The PBoC is trying to prevent an outbreak-induced illiquidity issue from turning into a widespread insolvency problem.  Chart 9Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Chart 10Private Sector Highly Leveraged... Private Sector Highly Leveraged... Private Sector Highly Leveraged... This approach is warranted. Small businesses have been disproportionally hit by the outbreak and are reporting a severe shortage of cash. China’s private sector is particularly vulnerable to cash flow restrictions because many businesses are highly leveraged (Chart 10).  A joint survey of 995 small and mid-size companies by Tsinghua and Peking universities showed that more than 60% of respondents said they can survive for only one to two months with their current savings (Chart 11).   Chart 11…Making Small Businesses Especially Vulnerable To Cash-Flow Constraints Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower Additionally, there is a risk that the PBoC is underestimating the demand for cash in the banking system, particularly from small- and medium-sized banks. This underestimation could lead to a rise in the interbank lending rate. This occurred in 2017 when the crackdown of shadow bank lending caused a funding squeeze for China’s small and mid-sized banks, which led to a material rise in interbank lending rates and government bond yields (shown in Chart 6). It is also the reason that we primarily track the 3-month SHIBOR over the 7-day rate, as the former tends to capture the effects of these funding squeezes whereas the latter does not. The demand for cash in the interbank market in the current quarter will be higher than in the same period last year. The government has announced an additional debt quota of 848 billion yuan, on top of the previously authorized quota of 1 trillion yuan worth of local government bonds that would be frontloaded in Q1. This is a 32% increase from a total of 1400 billion yuan of bonds that local government frontloaded in Q1 2019. This implies the demand for cash in the interbank market will remain high as commercial banks account for about 80% of local government bond purchases.4 A temporary spike in corporate bond defaults leading to a jump in the interbank rate could also push up government bond yields. Additionally, the delayed resumption of work, the loss of production and the cash crunch facing small companies raise the risk of a surge in overdue bank loans and defaults. This could also escalate the demand for cash from smaller banks, because large commercial banks may be unwilling to lend to riskier borrowers in the interbank market. The 3-month SHIBOR has inched up since the takeover of Baoshang Bank in May 2019. Chart 12Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields We expect the PBoC to lower the loan prime rate (LPR), following the 10bps cut in the medium lending facility rate (MLF) on February 17. As we pointed out in our January 29 Special Report, this easing by the PBoC will reduce corporate lending rates, but not necessarily interbank rates. Chart 12 shows that the change in average lending rates lags the change in Chinese government bond yields. Therefore, the upcoming cuts in the LPR are a result of lowered interbank rates and bond yields, not a cause for changes in government bond yields going forward. Bottom Line: Monetary policy will remain relatively loose this year, but we think the PBoC’s recent aggressive easing will be a temporary event. Any additional easing by the PBoC this year will likely be through providing short-term cash relief and temporarily lowered funding costs to non-financial corporations. There are also near-term risks that interbank rates may be pushed up due to a liquidity crunch.  Hence, yields at the short-end will likely be volatile in the near term whereas yields at the long-end are unlikely to stay at their current low levels. Investment Conclusions While we think monetary policy may get even looser in the very near term, there is limited potential for the short-end of the Chinese government bond yield curve to remain at such low levels. Barring a lasting economic slowdown from the Covid-19 outbreak, the long-end of the curve has the potential to move moderately higher in the second half of the year, as China’s economy recovers from the outbreak-induced shock. Bond yields at the short-end will likely be volatile in the near term whereas yields at the long-end are unlikely to stay at their current low levels. Given this, we continue to expect Chinese domestic and investable equities to outperform government bonds in the next 6-12 months, and we would advise Chinese fixed-income investors against an aggressively long duration stance. Onshore corporate bonds, while risking a higher default rate in the near term, shares a similar outlook on a cyclical basis: onshore spreads are pricing in (massively) higher default losses than we believe are warranted. This means that onshore corporate bonds will still outperform duration-matched government bonds without any changes in yield, underpinning another year of Chinese corporate bond market outperformance versus government bonds.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "How To Analyze And Position Towards Chinese Government Bonds," dated January 29, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Evolving Crisis," dated February 13, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted," dated February 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4   ChinaBond, as of 2019 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Spread Product: Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for high-yield. Accommodative monetary conditions will ensure that the supply of credit remains ample for some time yet. This will keep defaults low and spreads tight. Monetary Policy: The Fed is in no rush to tighten policy, but has also set a high bar for further cuts. Investors should short August 2020 fed funds futures.  Yields Will Move Higher … But Not Yet Chart 1A Peak In New Cases? A Peak In New Cases? A Peak In New Cases? Uncertainty about the economic impact of the coronavirus – now officially called COVID-19 – is the cloud that continues to hang over financial markets. Last week, bond yields fell when a change in the definition of what constitutes a confirmed infection caused the number of reported cases to spike. However, even after revisions, the daily number of new cases looks like it may have peaked (Chart 1). The end result is that the 10-year Treasury yield sits at 1.58%, not far from where it was last week (Chart 2). Notably, the 10-year yield continues to shrug off the notable improvement in US economic data (Chart 2, bottom panel), taking its cues instead from COVID-19 headline risk. Even if the downtrend in new COVID-19 cases continues, it is too soon to be looking for higher bond yields. For one thing, the most up-to-date economic data releases were collected during January, before the outbreak. Weaker readings during the next 1-2 months are assured, and investors may not look through the weakness given that many were already skeptical about the prospects for global economic recovery. Our read of the data is that global growth was in the process of bottoming when COVID-19 struck. We therefore expect global growth to move higher once the virus’ impact abates. In terms of timing, using the 2003 SARS outbreak as a comparable, we expect bonds to remain bid until the daily number of new cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. Yields continue to shrug off improvements in economic data. It’s not just the long-end of the curve that has responded to COVID-19. The front-end has also moved to price-in high odds of a rate cut in the coming months. Specifically, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a 42 bps decline in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months (Chart 2, panel 2), and the fed funds futures market is pricing a 74% chance of a rate cut by the end of the summer. As we discussed last week, given that any economic impact from COVID-19 will be temporary, we think the bar for a Fed rate cut this year is quite high.1 As such, our Golden Rule of Bond Investing dictates that investors should keep portfolio duration low on a 12-month horizon.2 We also recommend shorting August 2020 fed funds futures, a trade that will earn 23 bps of unlevered return if the Fed stands pat between now and August (Chart 2, panel 3). Turning to corporate credit, we see that, so far, COVID-19’s impact on spreads has been minor. The investment grade corporate bond index spread is only 3 bps wider than at the start of the year, and the junk index spread is only 8 bps wider (Chart 3). Value remains stretched in the investment grade space, but high-yield spreads look quite attractive. The sell-off in the energy sector has boosted the high-yield index spread considerably (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). We view this as a medium-term buying opportunity for junk. Once the COVID outbreak abates and global growth ticks higher, the oil price is bound to increase, leading to some tightening in energy spreads. Chart 2Bond Yields Driven By COVID Bond Yields Driven By COVID Bond Yields Driven By COVID Chart 3HY More Attractive Than IG HY More Attractive Than IG HY More Attractive Than IG Will Bonds Feel The Bern? Beyond COVID-19, there is one more risk on the horizon this year. Specifically, the risk that Bernie Sanders is elected President in November. This outcome is far from certain. Sanders is currently leading all other candidates in the Democratic Primary, but fivethirtyeight.com’s model puts the odds of a brokered convention at 38%.3 This means that the race is still wide open and might only be settled at the convention in July. But given Sanders’ lead, it is worth considering the bond market implications if he were to become the next President. The most obvious implication is that risk assets (equities and corporate spreads) would respond to Sanders’ agenda of wealth redistribution by selling off. This could spur a flight-to-quality into government bonds, causing Treasury yields to fall. However, that flight-to-quality won’t occur if markets also start to price-in the long-run implications of Sanders’ agenda. I.e. the fact that the redistribution of wealth from capital to labor would lower the economy’s marginal propensity to save, and likely raise inflation expectations, leading to higher interest rates. It’s important to note that there are a lot of hurdles to overcome before Sanders’ full policy agenda is implemented. First he must secure the Democratic nomination, then defeat Donald Trump in the general election. Even after that, he will still need to convince the House and Senate to pass non-watered down versions of his proposals. With such a long road ahead, we don’t think Sanders’ momentum will push bond yields higher in 2020. Rather, the risk is that Sanders’ rise keeps bond yields low in 2020 as risk assets sell off. If Bernie Sanders looks poised to win the nomination, we will consider reducing our 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. The outlook for the Democratic Primary should become clearer after Super Tuesday on March 3. If Sanders looks poised to win the nomination we will consider reducing our recommended 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. Bottom Line: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for junk. Though the credit cycle is far from over (see next section), we may reduce our recommended allocation to spread product versus Treasuries if Sanders’ election chances rise.  Bank Lending Standards Won’t Push Credit Spreads Wider In 2020 The net change in commercial & industrial (C&I) bank lending standards, as reported in the Fed’s quarterly Senior Loan Officer Survey, is a vitally important indicator for the credit cycle. Easing lending standards tend to coincide with a low default rate and falling credit spreads, while tightening lending standards usually coincide with spread widening and a rising default rate. With that in mind, it is mildly concerning that bank lending standards have been fluctuating around neutral levels for quite some time, and have in fact tightened in two of the past five quarters (Chart 4). In this week’s report we consider whether tighter bank lending standards could pose a risk to our overweight spread product view in 2020. Chart 4Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank lending standards are such an important credit cycle variable because they tell us about the supply of credit. A corporate default only occurs when credit supply is lower than the amount required for that firm’s survival. On a macro scale, we can think of two main reasons why lenders might restrict the credit supply: They perceive the monetary environment as restrictive. That is, they worry about higher interest rates and slower growth in the future. They perceive corporate balance sheets as being in poor health. That is, they worry that firms won’t be sufficiently profitable to make good on their debts. We find that monetary indicators do a very good job of predicting when lending standards will tighten. Looking back at the past two cycles, lending standards didn’t tighten until after: The yield curve inverted (Chart 4, panel 2). The real fed funds rate was above its estimated equilibrium level (Chart 4, panel 3). Inflation expectations were at or above target levels (Chart 4, bottom panel). Presently, all three of these monetary indicators are supportive. Some portions of the yield curve have been inverted at various times during the past year. But in general, the inversion signal from the yield curve has not been as strong as it was when lending standards tightened in prior cycles. For instance, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope has not inverted this cycle, and it currently sits at +20 bps (Chart 4, panel 2). Further, the real fed funds rate is below most estimates of its neutral level and the Fed is signaling that it will keep it there for a long time yet. This dovish posture is justified by inflation expectations that remain well below target. It is conceivable that, despite the accommodative monetary environment, banks might be so concerned about poor balance sheet health that they are becoming more cautious with their lending. However, a survey of corporate health metrics doesn’t point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards either (Chart 5). Chart 5Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables In past cycles, tighter bank lending standards were preceded by: A trough in gross leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) (Chart 5, panel 2). A peak in interest coverage (Chart 5, panel 3). Negative pre-tax profit growth (Chart 5, panel 4). A peak in profit margins (Chart 5, bottom panel). Currently, gross leverage is the only one of the above four variables that is clearly sending a negative signal. As for the other three, interest coverage and profit margins are barely off their cyclical highs, and profit growth has been fluctuating around zero for three years. If global growth rebounds during the next 12 months, as we expect, then profit growth will also move modestly higher. Bottom Line: Neither monetary nor balance sheet variables point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards. We expect that the supply of credit will remain ample in 2020, keeping the default rate low and credit spreads tight. A Note On Falling C&I Loan Demand In addition to questions about lending standards, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey also asks banks to report whether they are seeing stronger or weaker demand for C&I loans. In response, banks have reported weaker C&I loan demand for six consecutive quarters, ending in Q4 2019. Historically, it is unusual for C&I loan demand to fall without a concurrent tightening in lending standards (Chart 6). Chart 6Explaining Weakening Loan Demand Explaining Weakening Loan Demand Explaining Weakening Loan Demand We also see the impact of weaker loan demand in the hard data. C&I loan growth has been falling since early 2019 (Chart 6, panel 2) and net corporate bond issuance had been on a sharp downtrend since 2015, before moving higher last year (Chart 6, bottom panel). So what’s going on with C&I loan demand? We can think of two reasons why firms might seek out less credit. First, they may face a dearth of investment opportunities, or alternatively, they might perceive some benefit from carrying less debt on their balance sheets. On the first point, we find that new orders for core capital goods do a very good job explaining the swings in C&I lending (Chart 7). Specifically, we see that the global growth slowdown of 2015/16 drove both investment spending and C&I lending lower. Then, both series recovered in 2017/18 before moving down again during last year’s slowdown. Surveys about firms’ capital spending plans also dropped last year, consistent with the deceleration in C&I lending, but remain at high levels (Chart 7, bottom three panels). All of this suggests that C&I loan growth will recover this year as global growth improves and the investment landscape brightens. Capital goods new orders do a good job explaining C&I lending. Corporate bond issuance has followed a different path from C&I lending during the past few years. Specifically, bond issuance slowed in 2015/16 as investment spending dried up. But it did not recover in 2017/18 the way that investment spending and C&I lending did. This appears to be a result of the 2018 corporate tax cuts and repatriation holiday. Chart 8 shows that the Financing Gap – the difference between capex spending and retained earnings – plunged in 2018 because firms suddenly received a huge influx of retained earnings. The influx came in part from the lower tax rate, but mostly from repatriated cash that had been stranded overseas. Simply, firms didn’t need to issue bonds to finance their investment plans in 2018 because they had a lot more cash on hand. Chart 7C&I Lending Follows ##br##Investment C&I Lending Follows Investment C&I Lending Follows Investment Chart 8A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt What about the possibility that firms are demanding less debt because they are trying to clean up their balance sheets? Beyond a few anecdotes, we don’t see much support for this idea. In fact, an equity index of firms with low debt/asset ratios has been underperforming an index of firms with high debt/asset ratios (Chart 9). This suggests that there is currently little reward for firms that are paying down debt. Chart 9Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Bottom Line: Weaker demand for C&I loans is a result of the recent global growth downturn and decline in investment spending. It is not a harbinger of the end of the credit cycle. Loan demand should improve as global growth rebounds this year. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on our Golden Rule of Bond Investing please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Most of the macro and operating indicators we track are sending conflicting messages on the anticipated direction in the cyclical/defensive ratio. Stay on the sidelines on cyclicals versus defensives. While the coronavirus epidemic will take a bite out of airline demand in the near-term, firm consumer confidence, rising consumer outlays, recovering services PMIs, rising airline pricing power, falling kerosene prices, compelling relative valuations and oversold technicals, all signal that airlines are well positioned to regain altitude on a cyclical time horizon. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Will The Fed Save The Day, Again? Will The Fed Save The Day, Again? Feature The SPX shrugged off the persistently negative coronavirus epidemic news and made fresh all-time highs last week (top panel, Chart 1). Domestic flush liquidity remains the dominant macro theme coupled with the expectation of a sizable fiscal and monetary easing out of China in the coming months. Importantly, according to the CME there is a 60% chance of a Fed interest rate cut priced in for the July 29, 2020 FOMC meeting which jumps to over 80% probability for the December 16, 2020 meeting. This is sustaining downward pressure on the 10-year Treasury yield, which in turn is boosting equities. A glum JOLTS report along with the 12-month fed funds rate discounter corroborate that additional Fed easing is likely nearing (middle & bottom panels, Chart 1). Chart 1Is A Fed Interest Rate Cut Looming? Is A Fed Interest Rate Cut Looming? Is A Fed Interest Rate Cut Looming? Chart 2Unsustainable Rise In “Tenuous Trio” Unsustainable Rise In “Tenuous Trio” Unsustainable Rise In “Tenuous Trio” The extreme concentration in excess returns in a handful of tech stocks is another potential trouble spot for equities that we have been highlighting recently. Nevertheless, beneath the surface trouble is brewing. Chart 2 shows three asset classes rising concurrently. The “tenuous trio” as we have called stocks, Treasurys and the greenback in the past, cannot rise in tandem. When all three asset prices appreciate, it typically foreshadows equity market trouble. In this particular iteration, even the VIX is up for the year, representing a big break in historical correlations. Worrisomely, since 2018 every time the VIX and the SPX became positively correlated, the broad market subsequently suffered a setback (Chart 3).  While the SPX is making all-time highs, the VIX is neither making all-time lows nor cyclical lows. Importantly, equity market volatility is staying stubbornly close to 15, slightly below the ten-year average. As a reminder, a “VIX reading of 15 means that in 30 days the S&P 500 is expected to trade between 4.3% lower and 4.3% higher than its current level”.1 Chart 3Watch Out For Vol Watch Out For Vol Watch Out For Vol The extreme concentration in excess returns in a handful of tech stocks is another potential trouble spot for equities that we have been highlighting recently.2 Chart 4 shows the percentage of GICS2 sectors with negative two-year relative share price momentum. The higher this diffusion rises the fewer the sectors that drive the SPX’s return. Historically, when our diffusion hits the 70% mark, it signals exhaustion in equity market returns. In fact, 70% readings in this diffusion indicator led both the 2000 and 2007 peaks in the SPX. Chart 4Heed The Diffusion Index’s Message Heed The Diffusion Index’s Message Heed The Diffusion Index’s Message This week we update our views on the cyclical /defensive portfolio bent and a niche industrials sub-group. Meanwhile on the economic front, the JOLTS report made for grim reading. Labor market softness was evident across the board and it was not squarely concentrated in the manufacturing sector. While this indicator only goes back two cycles, it is flashing yellow for the prospects of the broad equity market (top panel, Chart 5). Importantly, we will continue to monitor the job openings numbers as they are sending the exact opposite signal compared with unemployment insurance claims (job openings shown inverted, middle & bottom panels, Chart 5).  This week we update our views on the cyclical /defensive portfolio bent and a niche industrials sub-group. Chart 5Avoid Getting JOLTed Avoid Getting JOLTed Avoid Getting JOLTed Mixed Signals We have been neutral the cyclicals/defensives ratio for the past 8 months and continue to recommend investors stay on the sidelines for a while longer. It has been particularly difficult to distinguish a clear signal from noise lately for the cyclicals versus defensives ratio. Relevant macro drivers, operating metrics and profit fundamentals, valuations and technicals all have been emitting conflicting messages and the recent coronavirus epidemic will likely make the waters murkier still. US Equity Strategy’s Global Trade Activity Indicator has turned south recently following in the footsteps of the Chinese manufacturing PMI data that ticked down and are slated to drop below the boom/bust line in the current month (top & bottom panels, Chart 6). The bond market also reflects a gloomy global economic backdrop with the global 10-year Treasury yield sinking like a stone. Such a lackluster bond market will likely weigh on relative share prices (middle panel, Chart 6). CEOs remain a depressed bunch and it is all but certain that for, at least, the next three months executives will put capex plans on the backburner. Basic resources are most at risk and keep in mind that relative capex growth was already decelerating prior to the coronavirus epidemic (top & second panels, Chart 7). Chart 6Trade Uncertainty… Trade Uncertainty… Trade Uncertainty… Chart 7… And Capex Softness Weighs On Cyclicals … And Capex Softness Weighs On Cyclicals … And Capex Softness Weighs On Cyclicals A soft sales backdrop coupled with inventory accumulation are firing a warning shot. Relative share prices will likely succumb to the still weak total business sales-to-inventories ratio (third panel, Chart 7). Importantly, an inventory liquidation phase will continue to exert downward pressure on relative profit margins (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 8Pricing Power Proxy Blues Pricing Power Proxy Blues Pricing Power Proxy Blues Our simple relative pricing power proxy for the cyclical/defensive ratio best encapsulates these relative selling price pressures. The CRB metals-to-gold price ratio is on the verge of a breakdown and warns that the wide gulf that has opened up between our pricing power proxy and relative share prices will narrow via a sell off in the latter (Chart 8). Nevertheless, this stands in marked contrast to the ISM manufacturing prices paid subcomponent of the Report On Business survey and actual cyclicals/defensives pricing power momentum (bottom panel, Chart 9). Chart 9The US Dollar Holds The Key The US Dollar Holds The Key The US Dollar Holds The Key Were the greenback to depreciate in the coming months as our FX strategists expect, then cyclicals selling prices would definitively regain the upper hand versus their defensives counterparts (top & middle panels, Chart 9). But, the jury is still out. Sell-side analysts remain optimistic that relative profits will stage a significant comeback in the next year, but on a short-term basis have been trimming cyclical versus defensive earnings revisions (middle & bottom panels, Chart 10). While our macro-factor relative profit growth models were staging a comeback all last year, they ticked down last month (second panel, Chart 10). Finally, relative technical and valuation conditions are both tracing out a bottom near the one standard deviation below the historical mean, a level that has marked prior recoveries in relative share prices (Chart 11). Chart 10Mixed Bag Mixed Bag Mixed Bag Chart 11Unloved & Undervalued Unloved & Undervalued Unloved & Undervalued Bottom Line: Most of the macro and operating indicators we track are sending conflicting messages on the anticipated direction in the cyclical/defensive ratio. Remain on the sidelines on cyclicals versus defensives, but stay tuned. Clipped Wings? Airline stocks have taken it to the chin lately on the back of coronavirus demand destruction fears, but we reiterate our overweight stance as extreme bearishness appears overdone. Investors tend to overreact to events such as virus epidemics, but we deem that such fears typically create trading opportunities, especially in the hardest-hit sectors. Similar to hotels (that we upgraded to neutral last week), airlines are part of the tourism-related industries that have suffered disproportionately. Were we not overweight the S&P airlines index, we would not hesitate to initiate such a position. True, consumer and business demand for air transportation services will come under pressure in the near-term, however looking further out such demand destruction will likely prove transitory. Chart 12 shows that the cyclical demand backdrop is robust for the US airline industry. Overall consumer outlays jumped recently, PCE services momentum is perking up, airfare PCE is outpacing overall consumer spending – an impressive feat – and consumer confidence is perched near cycle highs sustaining a wide gap with relative share prices (bottom panel, Chart 12). US domestic and international passenger enplanements are running near the 5%/annum growth rate and the recent rebound in the global and US services PMIs suggests that any kink in demand will likely prove short-lived (Chart 13). Chart 12Firming Cyclical… Firming Cyclical… Firming Cyclical… Chart 13…Demand Backdrop… …Demand Backdrop… …Demand Backdrop… Importantly, this firm cyclical demand backdrop is reflected in accelerating airline selling price inflation both on domestic and international routes (second & third panels, Chart 14). However, profit margins have yet to reflect this encouraging top line growth backdrop. The airline load factor spread (calculated as load factor minus break-even load factor) also heralds a profit margin expansion phase (bottom panel, Chart 14). Chart 14…Is A Boon For Selling Prices …Is A Boon For Selling Prices …Is A Boon For Selling Prices Chart 15Lower Fuel Costs Should Turbocharge Profit Margins Lower Fuel Costs Should Turbocharge Profit Margins Lower Fuel Costs Should Turbocharge Profit Margins Tack on the roughly 16% year-to-date drubbing in oil prices and airline profit margins will expand in 2020. This is true especially for the bulk of the industry that does not hedge kerosene costs (jet fuel shown inverted, Chart 15). The analyst community has been pessimistic about the prospects of airline stocks. Revenue and profit growth expectations are slated to tail the SPX in the coming twelve months. This sets a low bar for the industry to surpass in coming earnings seasons (Chart 16). Finally, investors have thrown in the towel, pushing relative valuations to extremely depressed levels to the tune of nearly two standard deviations below the historical mean (middle panel, Chart 17). Relative technicals are also washed out and signal that, at least, a reflex rebound is in store in the coming months (bottom panel, Chart 17). Chart 16Low Bar To Surpass Low Bar To Surpass Low Bar To Surpass Chart 17Contrary Alert: Pessimism Reigns Supreme Contrary Alert: Pessimism Reigns Supreme Contrary Alert: Pessimism Reigns Supreme In sum, while the coronavirus epidemic will take a bite out of airline demand in the near-term, firm consumer confidence, rising consumer outlays, recovering services PMIs, rising airline pricing power, falling kerosene prices, compelling relative valuations and oversold technicals, all signal that airlines are well positioned to regain altitude on a cyclical time horizon.      Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P airlines index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5AIRLX – LUV, DAL, UAL, AAL, ALK.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     https://us.spindices.com/vix-intro/ 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Three EPS Scenarios”, dated January 13, 2020, and “When The Music Stops…”, dated January 27, 2020, both available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Will The Fed Save The Day, Again? Will The Fed Save The Day, Again? 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 Why did S&P 500 profit margins fall in 2019?: Compensation gains, trade tensions and spotty growth were the most likely culprits, though the absence of standardized disclosure hinders full attribution. Was it a one-off, or the beginning of a trend?: We believe that profit margins have likely peaked, though we expect that they will contract only modestly this year. The outcome of the election could have a significant margin impact going forward. The coronavirus outbreak may be worsening around Wuhan, but it does not appear to be metastasizing elsewhere: Our China strategists foresee an extended lockdown of Hubei province, but expect that the rest of the Chinese economy will be able to overcome it. They are cautiously optimistic about the prospects for containment. Sustainability What a difference a year makes. Last President’s Day, the S&P 500 was more than 5% below its September 2018 peak (18% below its current level), amidst widespread fears that the Fed may have tightened into a recession. The month-long government shutdown was an embarrassing own goal, and trade tensions loomed as a threat to corporate earnings and global growth. It would take another two months before the S&P 500 fully recovered, only to have the yield curve invert soon thereafter. The coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19) has the curve flirting with inversion again, but stocks have shrugged off the growth risks. They continue to scale the wall of worry as self-appointed bubble spotters’ blood pressure soars, leaving them sputtering like Judge Smails or the bank official overseeing Charles Foster Kane’s trust. While we acknowledge that COVID-19 and Bernie Sanders’ post-Iowa-and-New Hampshire position at the head of the Democratic pack could yet become problematic for markets and the economy, our take aligns much more closely with Fed Chair Powell’s House testimony last week. “There’s nothing about this expansion that is unstable or unsustainable.” COVID-19 Update Chart 1What Happens In Hubei What Next For Profit Margins? What Next For Profit Margins? Our China Investment Strategy colleagues were encouraged by the latest Chinese data on the outbreak. Although they foresee that Wuhan, and quite possibly all of Hubei province, will be shut down through the end of March, they do not think the action will thwart China’s nascent growth recovery. In their estimation, domestic companies will be able to reroute their supply chains with minimal disruption. If the equity market avoids a virus-related plunge, as they expect, the economy may dodge the deleterious impact on confidence that might otherwise emerge. Our sanguine China outlook encountered some resistance from clients, who have been surprised at how swiftly markets seemed to put the outbreak aside, and skeptical of official reports that seemed a little too good to be true. We suggested that they employ a trust-but-verify approach similar to ours. We are taking official data as given, while using other countries’ data as a reasonableness check. We are monitoring the magnitude of PRC policy efforts to mitigate the virus’ drag and remaining vigilant for any signs of global supply chain disruptions. Bottom Line: Our China strategists were heartened by official reports indicating that the coronavirus has been mostly contained in Hubei province (Chart 1), but are actively seeking out other evidence for corroboration before concluding that the worst is over. Making Sense Of Declining Profit Margins As we showed last week, S&P 500 profit margins narrowed across 2019, with 2% EPS growth lagging 5% growth in per-share revenue. Margins do not remain fixed over time, but the contraction represented a notable shift after several years of steady margin expansion. Even when EPS declined on a year-over-year basis for four straight quarters across 2015 and 2016, margins mainly held their own as revenues, which contracted year-over-year for six consecutive quarters, had it worse (Chart 2). Chart 2Fun While It Lasted What Next For Profit Margins? What Next For Profit Margins? We primarily attribute last year’s decline to gains in labor’s share of income. Although average hourly earnings growth decelerated from 2018 to 2019, real unit labor cost growth flipped from negative to positive. Tariffs also likely detracted from income, as domestic businesses were surely not able to pass through all of their increased cost of goods sold to their customers against a backdrop of persistently low inflation and limited pricing power. Decelerating US and global growth was also a drag (Chart 3). Chart 3Growth Decelerated Everywhere In 2019 What Next For Profit Margins? What Next For Profit Margins? Have Profit Margins Peaked? Excepting meaningful structural changes, profit margins are a mean-reverting series. Following steady margin expansion over three business cycle expansions spanning nearly three decades, mean reversion is an unappealing prospect for equity investors (Chart 4). Unless corporate tax rates are raised, though, the mean going forward will be higher than the mean established when federal taxation was more onerous. Additionally, an in-depth Bank Credit Analyst study argued that profit margins have not grown as much as it would appear to the naked eye,1 but they are elevated, and their future direction will influence prospective equity returns. Chart 4Margins Have Thrived In The Last Three Expansions Margins Have Thrived In The Last Three Expansions Margins Have Thrived In The Last Three Expansions A definitive analysis of S&P 500 margins would compile detailed revenue and expense data for each constituent in the index, but compiling the bottom-up data would repeatedly bump up against inconsistent disclosure conventions across companies and industries. For now, we will have to content ourselves with what we can glean from top-down analysis. Margins shrank in 2019 because of rising real unit labor costs, increased tariffs and global growth deceleration. Employee compensation is far and away the single biggest expense item for businesses as a whole. Changes in compensation are therefore the most consistently critical driver of changes in margins. Other key factors include: overall economic growth, growth relative to capacity, globalization, competitive intensity, and growth of the capital stock. GDP Growth Over time, growth in a company’s revenues should converge with the weighted average of economic growth in the countries in which it operates. The sensitivity of any given company’s net income to changes in sales revenue depends on its operating leverage, but any company with at least some fixed costs will see its margins expand as sales rise. We expect that US GDP growth will moderate going forward, given that hoped-for increases in economic capacity do not appear to have offset the growth overhang from the stimulus package’s increased deficits.2 For the current year, however, we expect that an acceleration in non-US growth may largely offset moderating US growth for the aggregate S&P 500. (Chart 5) Chart 5Sales Growth Feeds Operating Leverage Sales Growth Feeds Operating Leverage Sales Growth Feeds Operating Leverage The Output Gap The degree of excess capacity in the economy is most easily proxied by the output gap, the difference between the economy’s actual output and its long-run potential output, which is a function of productivity and labor force growth. Pricing power is directly related to the output gap; it’s weak when the gap is negative, and robust when the gap is positive. Excess capacity is the enemy of profits, and margins benefit when it is worked off, even if positive output gaps can’t persist indefinitely (Chart 6). With the economy continuing to grow at close to its estimated trend rate, the output gap isn’t likely to have an impact this year. Globalization allows US companies to tap lower-cost inputs in the developing world. Chart 6Excess Capacity Erodes Pricing Power Excess Capacity Erodes Pricing Power Excess Capacity Erodes Pricing Power Globalization Globalization has been a major force promoting margin expansion over the last 20 to 30 years, granting US-domiciled businesses access to the developing world’s lower-cost inputs. Outsourcing saves money and global supply chains have significantly reduced product costs. Tariffs and other trade barriers are an obstacle to outsourcing, and it is our in-house geopolitical strategists’ view that the US will continue to backtrack from globalization no matter which party captures the White House in November. Changes in the sum of exports and imports as a share of GDP provide a simple proxy for changes in the intensity of globalization (Chart 7). Chart 7More Open Borders = Higher Margins More Open Borders = Higher Margins More Open Borders = Higher Margins Competitiveness Margins are directly related to the intensity of globalization, but they are inversely related to the intensity of competition, which is itself inversely related to the degree of industry concentration. The laissez-faire approach to anti-trust enforcement which has generally prevailed since the Reagan administration has promoted concentration. Businesses gain pricing power as their industries move along the spectrum from perfect competition toward monopoly, just as they gain increasing power to set wages as individual labor markets move toward monopsony. Pressure for federal action to reverse the four-decade trend toward concentration will rise if the Democrats win the White House, especially as our Geopolitical Strategy service holds that the party that takes the presidency will also take the Senate. Productivity Changes in margins are directly related to the pace of productivity gains. Workers are able to do more in a given period of time when they’re endowed with more and/or better tools, and investment provides those tools. Increases in the size of the capital stock lead to productivity gains. The NFIB survey suggests that small businesses are poised to increase capital expenditures, and the capex intentions components of the regional Fed manufacturing surveys have begun pointing in that direction as well, but investment has consistently disappointed since the crisis (Chart 8), and productivity growth has been tepid for an extended period of time as a result. Chart 8Investment Pays Off In Higher Margins Investment Pays Off In Higher Margins Investment Pays Off In Higher Margins Unit Labor Costs Rising labor costs by themselves do not necessarily mean that margins will contract. If output increases more than rising wages, margins will expand. We therefore watch unit labor costs, which measure output-adjusted changes in compensation. Growth in real unit labor costs is our preferred measure for their additional insight into profitability, given that changes in the overall price level are a solid proxy for changes in sales prices. When real unit labor costs are falling, corporate margins are likely expanding as revenue gains can be expected to outpace employees’ compensation per unit of output. Given the especially tight labor market, we expect real unit labor costs to continue to rise, chipping away at profit margins (Chart 9). Chart 9Persistently Negative Real Unit Labor Costs Have Boosted Margins Persistently Negative Real Unit Labor Costs Have Boosted Margins Persistently Negative Real Unit Labor Costs Have Boosted Margins Taxes, Interest Rates And The Dollar The biggest driver of after-tax margins in recent years has been the 40% reduction in the top marginal federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% beginning in 2018. We expect no material corporate tax changes if the president wins re-election, while we would expect that an incoming Democratic administration, fortified by House and Senate majorities, would prioritize increasing corporate tax revenues. We expect a modest rise in interest rates over the year, which is unlikely to materially impact firms’ interest expense. We expect that the dollar will weaken in 2020, as incremental growth in the rest of the world exceeds incremental growth in the US, providing the S&P 500 with a modest margin tailwind. Bottom Line: On balance, we expect that the S&P 500 will face modest margin headwinds in 2020. If the Democrats assume control of the White House and both houses of Congress next January, downward pressure on margins could intensify. Investment Implications Falling margins against a backdrop of tepid revenue growth suggest that 2020 S&P 500 earnings growth will be nothing to write home about. Stocks will have to get an assist from multiple expansion if they are to continue producing double-digit annual returns. We do not think multiple expansion is much of a stretch – it would be consistent with the latter stages of previous bull markets – but equities do not need to generate double-digit returns to top the prospective returns on offer from Treasuries, credit-sensitive fixed income or cash. As long as the margin compression unfolds slowly, equities will merit at least an equal-weight allocation in balanced portfolios as will spread product in dedicated fixed income portfolios. Corporate profit margins would quickly feel the burn in a Sanders administration. We expect that profit margins will compress slowly, as it remains our base case (albeit with limited conviction) that the president will win re-election. Under a Democratic regime, however, corporate tax rates would likely rise, anti-trust enforcement would likely unwind some of the buildup in industry concentration, and organized labor would gain a more sympathetic ear in Washington. If Bernie Sanders were to win the presidency instead of one of the Democratic moderates, margin compression would likely unfold much more rapidly (and multiples would be at immediate risk, to boot). The upcoming election is thus approaching something of a binary outcome for equities. We still see monetary policy as the swing factor for the ongoing expansion, and financial market returns, and we therefore remain constructive on the economy and risk assets. The election could upend that framework, however, passing the baton from the Fed to elected officials. We will be tracking the primary and general election ups and downs closely.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the October 2012 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Are US Corporate Profit Margins Really All That High?" available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 The economic case for the stimulus package rested on the expectation that it would promote investment in the capital stock that would not otherwise occur (via immediate expensing of investments and repatriation of capital held overseas) and facilitate labor force participation. A capex burst that followed its passage quickly fizzled, and we are of the opinion that the minor provisions intended to expand labor force participation have had little effect.