Equities

Highlights Portfolio Strategy An easy Fed as far as the eye can see and World War-like fiscal easing packages as the Trump administration prepares to slowly reopen the economy, signal that the path of least resistance remains higher for the S&P 500 in the coming 9-12 months. Relative indebtedness and profit margin improvements, extremely oversold technicals and significant relative undervaluation along with an encouraging message from financial market indicators, all suggest that it no longer pays to have a large cap bias. Book gains and step aside. Recent Changes Our long S&P 500/short S&P 600 position was stopped out last Tuesday for a 37% gain since inception.1 Last Wednesday our rolling stop was also triggered on the overweight in the S&P managed health care index – it is now neutral – for a gain of 26% since inception.2 Table 1 Feature The SPX made a run for the technically important 200-day moving average last week, and managed to climb to fresh recovery highs before giving back those gains as profit taking intensified late in the week. Three key drivers underpinned stocks and dominated the newsflow: First, resurfacing of positive news on remdesivir, a GILD drug, in treating the novel coronavirus. Second, the Fed reiterating its commitment to ZIRP and QE5 (Chart 1). And third, the quintuplet tech titans (MSFT, AAPL, GOOGL, AMZN & FB) reporting solid profits and April guidance, thus alleviating investors’ fears of a complete breakdown in tech revenues and EPS. Chart 1Easy Central Bank Monetary Policy Stance… Tack on the World War-like fiscal easing packages (Chart 2) and the path of least resistance remains higher for the S&P 500 in the coming 9-12 months. Chart 2…And An Easier Fiscal Policy Setting Are A Boon For Stocks Granted all of these monies are finding their way into the markets not only via higher asset prices, but also – and most crucially – the Fed’s massive liquidity injection is suppressing volatility. First, Fed actions have crushed the bond market’s vol, as depicted by Bank Of America’s MOVE index, that has now crumbled to a level last seen prior to the equity market drubbing. Similarly, the Fed has also quashed the VIX index which is now hovering near 35, down from a peak of 85 last month. Importantly, volatility petered out prior to the equity market’s trough, and so did different volatility curves (volatilities and volatility curve shown inverted, Chart 3). Turning over to S&P 500 net earnings revisions (NER), this mean reverting series was first tracked by I/B/E/S in 1985, and two weeks ago collapsed to the nadir of the GFC (Chart 4). Every time the NER ratio has hit such depressed levels, stocks have subsequently staged a powerful comeback. This has occurred five distinct times in the past 35 years and the SPX was 15% higher on average in the following twelve months (Chart 4). Chart 3Vols Lead On The Way Up And Down   Chart 4Extremely Depressed Net Earnings Revisions Have Troughed Drilling deeper beneath the surface is revealing. Analysts have been indiscriminately downgrading profits across all sectors. True, last week’s update revealed a tick up, which is an encouraging sign that the avalanche of downgrades may have already hit a climax (Charts 5 &  6). Chart 5Too Much Pessimism… Chart 6…Across The Board Importantly, our in-house calculated SPX sector EPS breadth is probing all-time lows. But, if the Fed manages to devalue the US dollar then a sharp reversal will ensue. Keep in mind, that the greenback and our EPS breadth indicator are inversely correlated as 40% of SPX sales are sourced internationally (Chart 7). Chart 7As Bad As It Gets Finally, a few words on the character of the equity market’s advance since the March 23 lows are in order. Contrary to popular belief, this has been an extremely broad based rally and the stocks that have done the best are not the large/mega caps. Instead the median stock has far outpaced the top market cap ranked constituents. In other words, the stocks that have rebounded the most are the ones that had fallen the most. Using Bloomberg data on SPX constituents from the March 23 lows until April 28, the first mega cap company that makes it to the top return ranks is CVX at the 22nd spot. UNH is 85th, ABT 90th and XOM 132nd. The tech titans start appearing below the 350th mark with MSFT 353rd, AAPL 362nd, FB 370th, AMZN 394th and GOOGL 439th. In other words, both the Value Line Arithmetic and Geometric indexes have been outperforming the SPX since the March 23 lows (top & middle panels, Chart 8). Similarly, small caps have also been besting the SPX (bottom panel, Chart 8). Notably, all three of these hypersensitive indexes have also led the SPX bottom. This week, we update our size view that was stopped out last Tuesday as the rolling stop was triggered for a gain of 37% since inception, and do some housekeeping. Chart 8Broad Based Rally Lock In Profits In the Size Bias And Move To The Sidelines In the spring of 2018 we initiated a size preference of large caps at the expense of small caps. At the time, we went against the grain as the investment community was arguing that small caps would offer the best protection from President’s Trump trade hawkishness. Their reasoning was that small caps are domestically oriented and would benefit from a rising dollar given low export exposure. While we were slightly offside for a quarter, this size preference recouped all the losses by October 2018, and never looked back since then. Our thesis was predicated upon relative indebtedness, relative profitability and relative profit margin outlook, all of which were in favor of large caps. Earlier this year when markets were convulsing we instituted a risk management metric with a rolling 10% stop on this size preference in order to protect profits for our portfolio.3 This past Tuesday our 10% rolling stop was triggered and we are obeying this stop, monetizing 37% gains since inception and we are moving to the sidelines on the size bias (Chart 9). Chart 9Take Profits And Move To The Sidelines Following a near collapse to two standard deviations below the six year mean, small cap performance has returned to the mean and is primed to sustain this reflex rebound. In marked contrast, large caps only corrected to their six year average and are now trading at over one standard deviation above that mean (Chart 10). When the economy was shut down small and medium businesses were clearly the outfits that would hurt the most. Their only rescue came belated in the form of the fiscal package. Thus, investors started pricing in a steep default cycle with SMEs at the forefront of the bankruptcy curve (top panel, Chart 10). In contrast, large caps with access to untapped credit lines, the bond and equity markets as well as their own cash coffers would not suffer as severely (second panel, Chart 10). Chart 10Large Cap Outperformance Reached An Extreme Now that the economy is on the verge of slowly reopening, we do not want to overstay our welcome and refrain from betting on a further jump in the large/small ratio; instead we opt to book profits and move to the sidelines. With regard to profit fundamentals, our relative jobs proxy has peaked and is no longer favoring large caps (second panel, Chart 11). Similarly, profit margins have likely bottomed for small caps while they have maxed out for large caps (third panel, Chart 11). On the relative indebtedness front, small cap net debt-to-EBITDA remains sky high but it has crested which is at the margin positive (bottom panel, Chart 11). Meanwhile, as the Fed has opened up the liquidity spigots, the government is as spendthrift as it can be and committed to slowly reopen the economy, then at some point in the summer the pendulum will swing the opposite way and some semblance of normality will return to the US economy. Therefore, this inflection point will end the threat of deflation and likely serve as a catalyst for a small/large multiple expansion phase (Chart 12). Chart 11Marginal Small Cap Improvements Chart 12When The Economy Turns, So Will Small Caps With regard to the message that financial market variables are sending for the small/large ratio, the collapse of the VIX is a welcome development (VIX shown inverted, Chart 13). Similarly, the yield curve has been in steepening mode again emitting a positive “risk on” signal. Under such a backdrop and given depressed technicals and bombed out valuations it is prudent not to wager against small caps at this juncture (Chart 14). Chart 13Leading Financial Market Indicators Say Do Not Overstay Your Welcome Chart 14Unloved And Undervalued Netting it all out, relative indebtedness and profit margin improvements, the slow reopening of the economy in the coming months, extremely oversold technicals and significant relative undervaluation along with an encouraging message from financial market indicators, all signal that it no longer pays to have a large cap bias. Bottom Line: Move to the sidelines on the size bias and crystalize profits of 37% since inception. Housekeeping Last Wednesday our rolling stop was also triggered on the overweight in the S&P managed health care index – it is now neutral – for a gain of 26% since inception (top panel, Chart 15).4 In addition, we are stepping aside from the COVID-proof basket of stocks we recommended six weeks ago.5 The coronavirus unintended consequences will alter government, business and consumer behaviors and it will most definitely affect consumer tastes, underscoring that the companies that comprise our COVID profit basket will likely be long-term winners. However, this basket has served its purpose and given that the global economy is on the verge of reopening it will be increasingly difficult to outperform the broad market. Thus, we are moving to the sidelines for a modest relative gain of 0.8% (second & third panels, Chart 15). Finally, our freshly minted market-neutral and intra-commodity long S&P oil & gas exploration & production/short global gold miners pair trade has gone parabolic right out of the gate soaring to 20% in a mere week. As a result of this explosive up-move, we are instituting a 10% rolling stop in this pair trade in order to protect profits for our portfolio (bottom panel, Chart 15). Chart 15Housekeeping     Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Daily Report, “Book Gains In Preferring Large Caps To Small Caps” dated April 30, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Daily Report, “Take Profits In HMOs And Move To The Sidelines” dated May 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Daily Report, “Closing Out All High-Conviction Calls” dated March 20, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Daily Report, “Take Profits In HMOs And Move To The Sidelines” dated May 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Daily Report, “Corona Virus Proof Portfolio” dated March 18, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps  June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of April 30, 2020.  The model has not made significant changes this month. Now Spain, Australia, Sweden and the US are the top four overweight countries, while Japan, the UK, France and Switzerland remain the four underweight countries, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark in April by 105 bps. The Level 1 model outperformed by 32 bps because of the overweight in the US. The Level 2 model outperformed by 241 bps thanks to the overweight of Australia and Canada, and the underweight in Japan, the UK, France and Switzerland. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 105 bps, with 135 bps of outperformance by the Level 2 model, and 29 bps of outperformance from the Level 1. Chart 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA US Vs. Non US Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non US Model (Level 2) For more on historical performance, please refer to our website https://www.bcaresearch.com/site/trades/allocation_performance/latest/G…. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered as well when making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of April 30, 2020. Chart 4Overall Model Performance The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The model turned negative on cyclical sectors in the beginning of March as the COVID-19 crisis intensified and growth indicators deteriorated. Throughout March, April and now May, the model continues to tilt towards defensive sectors. This has helped mitigate the shortfall in early March. However, that came at a cost as the model underperformed the benchmark by 33 basis points over the past month. The global growth proxy used in our model remains negative. This will continue to make the model's positioning focused on less cyclical sectors. The momentum component led the model to overweight Consumer Discretionary over the past month at the expense of Utilities. The unprecedented global monetary measures taken by global central banks should keep the liquidity component favouring a mixed bag of cyclical and defensive sectors. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors except Energy. However, we continue to highlight that the Info Tech’s valuation component has broken into overweight territory (yet the model awaits a downwards confirming momentum signal to recommend an underweight). The model is now overweight four sectors in total, two cyclical sector versus two defensive sectors. These are Information Technology, Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, and Health Care. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model”, dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Table 3Overall Model Performance Table 4Current Model Allocations Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com

Feature Global equities have seen an astonishing rally since mid-March, rising by 28%. This leaves them only 13% below their level at the beginning of the year. This is particularly remarkable given the unprecedented decline in economic activity with, for example, US GDP shrinking by an annualized 4.8% quarter-on-quarter in Q1, and the consensus forecasting it to fall by as much as 30% in Q2. Given this, risk assets are pricing in a highly optimistic trajectory over the coming months: a rapid return to normalcy, a V-shaped economic recovery, and minimal side-effects from the sudden stop to the world economy. In our Q2 Quarterly, we wrote we would turn more cautious if the S&P 500 moved quickly above 2,750.1 With it now at 2910, we are therefore lowering our recommendation on global equities on a 12-month horizon from Overweight to Neutral. The balance of probabilities – and the possibility of a second wave of the pandemic, rising corporate defaults, and problems among EM borrowers – simply does not justify an outright risk-on stance. Bear markets typically end 3-4 months before the economy bottoms (Table 1). If March was the low for stocks, therefore, this implies that the recession will end in June or July. BCA Research’s view is that the recovery is more likely to be U-shaped than V-shaped. Table 1Stocks Bottom On Average 3-4 Months Before The Recession Ends Chart 1New COVID-19 Cases Have Peaked What triggered the rally? Most notably, it anticipated a peaking of new COVID-19 cases in the world outside China (Chart 1). Several countries, notably Spain and Italy, have already felt able to ease quarantine rules, and others will do so during May. This raises the possibility that the pandemic will largely be over by July (except perhaps in a few developing countries, such as Brazil, where strict containment was shunned). The rally was fueled by unprecedented fiscal and monetary measures taken by the authorities everywhere. In the US, for example, the various new Federal Reserve liquidity programs add up to $4.2 trillion (20% of GDP) (Chart 2). The balance-sheets of major global central banks, particularly the Fed's, have ballooned in just a few weeks (Chart 3). As a result, US money supply and dollar liquidity have soared (Chart 4). Normally, when there is a flood of liquidity over and above what is needed to fund the real economy, that excess liquidity flows into asset markets, weakens the dollar, and boosts commodities and Emerging Markets. But these are not normal times. Liquidity injections amid deteriorating economic conditions cushion the downside but do not necessarily improve the outlook immediately – as we witnessed in 2007-2008.   Chart 2Multiple New Stimulus Programs… Chart 3...Made Central Bank Balance-Sheets Balloon... Chart 4...And Dollar Liquidity Soar Chart 5Pandemics Usually Have Several Waves The biggest risk is that the pandemic lingers. Epidemiologists agree that COVID-19 will not disappear until (1) a vaccine is available, likely to be 12-18 months (if one is possible at all – there is still no vaccine for HIV or SARS), or (2) 65-80% of the population has had the disease, creating “herd immunity”. Maybe a vaccine will be ready sooner, or a therapeutic treatment will drastically lower the mortality rate – but investors should not bet on it. It is worth remembering that the last big pandemic, the Spanish ‘flu of 1918-1919, had several waves, with the second the deadliest (Chart 5). It is possible that each time governments ease containment measures, the number of new cases will rise again. And even if they don’t, how likely is it that consumers will go back to shopping, eating in restaurants, or travelling as before? Big data from China show a general return to work but not to going out for entertainment (Chart 6). This is likely to remain a drag on the economy for a considerable period.   Chart 6Chinese Remain Reluctant To Go Out Moreover, the fiscal and stimulus packages will help to tide over households and companies in advanced economies during the toughest times – replacing lost wages, and providing bridging loans – but they do not solve the fundamental problem for firms that have lost most of their revenues. US corporate debt is at its highest percentage of GDP in recent history – and the ratio is even higher in parts of Europe, Japan, and China (Chart 7). Bankruptcies are likely to rise, which will make banks more cautious about lending, further tightening credit conditions. Moreover, stimulus packages won’t help Emerging Market borrowers, which have around $4 trillion of outstanding foreign-currency-denominated debt. With the sharp rise in EM credit spreads and fall in currencies over the past three months, many will struggle to service and repay this debt (Chart 8). Chart 7Corporate Debt Is At A Worrying Level Chart 8EM Dollar Borrowers Will Struggle     Portfolio construction is about probabilities. The scenario priced into risk assets currently – a rapid return to the status quo ante – could turn out to be correct. But there is a significant probability that it does not. We therefore recommend taking some risk off the table. We would not switch into quality government bonds as a hedge, since current yields would give little return even in a disastrous economic scenario – and could produce very negative returns if inflation picks up. We, rather, recommend Overweights in cash and gold, and a relatively low-beta tilt within equities.  Equities: Valuations, especially in the US, have not hit typical market-bottom levels. The price/book ratio for US equities, for example, troughed only at 2.9 in March, compared to a bear-market low of 1.5 in 2009 (Chart 9). Earnings will probably be revised down further: the consensus still expects only a 12% decline in S&P 500 EPS in 2020 (and a 21% jump next year); earnings revisions are usually closely correlated to stock prices (Chart 10). We, therefore, remain cautious in our regional equity positioning, with an Overweight on US stocks, and a somewhat defensive sector tilt (Overweights in IT and Healthcare, along with Industrials as a play on Chinese stimulus). One factor to watch: any sustained pickup in value and small-cap stocks, which showed some signs of appearing in late April (Chart 11). This has historically signaled the beginning of a bull market. Chart 9US Valuations Are Not At Usual Bottom Lows Chart 10Weak Earnings Can Drag Markets Down Further     Chart 11When Will Value And Small Caps Pick Up? Fixed Income: Quality government bonds look highly unattractive at current yields. Our calculations suggest only an 6.7% return from 10-year US Treasuries and 4.6% from Bunds even if their yields fall to the lowest possible level, 0% and -1% respectively. Inflation-linked bonds, especially in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada, look very undervalued, however.2 US 10-year breakevens have fallen to as low as 1.1% (Chart 12). In spread product, the best strategy at the moment is to buy what central banks are buying. That means investment-grade bonds in the US and Europe, Fallen Angels3  (since both the Fed and ECB will backstop bonds that were downgraded to junk in the past month), US Aaa CMBS and ABS, Agency CMBS, and munis. But the riskier end of the junk-bond universe looks unattractive. Even a moderate default cycle (with a 9% default rate for junk bonds – compared to 15% in the last recession – and a 25% recovery rate) would point to an excess return from B-rated corporate bonds of -20% over the next 12 months (Chart 13). Chart 12TIPS Look Very Cheap Chart 13Avoid The Lower End Of Junk Currencies: The dollar has moved sideways on a trade-weighted basis over the past two months. We remain Neutral, since in the short term the dollar could face upward pressure as a safe-haven play, especially versus Emerging Market currencies, if investors start to worry again about growth. In the longer run, however, the dollar looks expensive relative to purchasing power parity (Chart 14), and interest-rate differentials no longer favor it as they have done over much of the past decade (Chart 15). BCA Research’s FX strategists recommend a barbell strategy in currencies, with Overweights in cheap cyclical currencies such as the Canadian dollar and Norwegian krone, as well as safe havens such as the yen.4 Chart 14Dollar Is Expensive... Chart 15...And No Longer Benefits From Higher Rates     Commodities: After the extraordinary behavior of near-month WTI futures in April, the crude price should settle down. BCA Research’s energy strategists argue that renewed production cuts from Saudi Arabia and Russia, combined with a near-normalization in demand in H2, should push crude-oil balances back into a supply deficit by Q3 (Chart 16). Chart 16Oil Price Should Rise In H2 They forecast Brent to rise to $42 a barrel by the end of 2020, compared to $24 now. Industrial metals prices have generally remained depressed, despite the recovery in risk assets (Chart 17). But the effects of Chinese stimulus, combined with a weaker dollar, should cause them to recover later in the year (Chart 18). Gold remains a good hedge against further economic shocks or an eventual resurgence in inflation. Chart 17Metal Prices Haven't Recovered... Chart 18...But Should Soon Benefit From Chinese Stimulus   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Asset Allocation, “Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality,” dated April 1, 2020. 2  Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low," dated April 28, 2020. 3  Bonds that have recently been downgraded from investment grade to sub-investment grade. 4  Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "QE And Currencies," dated April 17, 2020. GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights The global economy will contract at its fastest pace since the early 1930s, but will not slump into a depression. Easy monetary conditions, an extremely expansive fiscal policy, and solid bank and household balance sheets are crucial to the economic outlook. Risk assets remain attractive. The dollar and bonds will soon move from bull to bear markets. The credit market offers some attractive opportunities. Stocks are vulnerable to short-term profit-taking, but the cyclical outlook remains bright. Favor energy and consumer discretionary equities. Feature What a difference a month makes. US and global equities have rallied by 31.4% and 28.3% from their March lows, respectively. Last month we recommended investors shift the weighting of their portfolios to stocks over bonds. April’s dramatic turnaround has not altered our positive view of equities on a 12- to 24-month basis, especially relative to government bonds. However, the probability of near-term profit taking is significant. The spectacular dislocation in the oil market also has grabbed headlines. This was a capitulation event. Hence, assets linked to oil are now cyclically attractive, even if they remain volatile in the coming weeks. It is time to buy energy equities, especially firms with solid balance sheets and proven dividend records. Under the IMF’s base case, the resulting output loss will total $9 trillion. Finally, the Federal Reserve’s large liquidity injections have dulled the dollar’s strength. While the USD still has some upside risk in the near term, investors should continue to transfer capital into foreign currencies. A weaker dollar will be the catalyst to lift Treasury yields and will contribute to the outperformance of energy stocks. Dismal Growth Versus Vigorous Policy Responses Chart I-1Consumer Spending Is In Freefall The economic lockdowns and the collapse in consumer confidence continue to take their toll on the US and global economies (Chart I-1). The eventual end of the shelter-at-home orders and the progressive re-opening of the economy will halt this trend. The rapid monetary and fiscal easing worldwide will allow growth to recover smartly in the second half of the year, but only after authorities loosen extreme social distancing measures. The Economy Is In Freefall… First-quarter US growth is already as weak as it was at the depth of the recession that followed the Great Financial Crisis. The second quarter will be even more anemic. Our Live-Trackers for both the US and global economies either continue to collapse or have flat-lined at rock-bottom levels (Chart I-2). US industrial production is falling at a 21% quarterly annualized rate and the weakness in the PMI manufacturing survey warns that the worst is yet to come. In March, retail sales contracted by 8.7% compared with February, which was the poorest reading on record, and year-on-year comparisons will only deteriorate further. Annual GDP growth could fall below -11% next quarter with both the industrial and consumer sectors in shock, according to the New York Fed Weekly Economic Index (Chart I-3). Chart I-2No Hope From The Live Trackers Chart I-3Real GDP Growth Is Melting The IMF expects the recession to eclipse the post GFC-slump, in both advanced and emerging economies. Its most recent World Economic Outlook describes base-case 2020 growth of -5.9%, -7.5%, and -1.0% in the US, Eurozone and emerging markets, respectively. This compares with -2.5%, -4.5% and 2.8% each in 2009. If a second wave of infections forces renewed lockdowns in the fall, then 2020 growth could be 5.12% and 4.49% lower than baseline in developed markets and emerging markets, respectively. Under the IMF’s base case, the resulting output loss will total $9 trillion in the coming 3 years (Chart I-4). Chart I-4An Enormous Output Gap Is Forming Chart I-5Disinflation Build-Up An output gap of the magnitude depicted by the IMF will dampen inflation for the next 12 to 24 months. In addition to the shortfall in aggregate demand, imploding economic confidence and the lag effect of the Fed’s monetary tightening in 2018 will pull down the velocity of money even further. This combination will reduce US inflation to 1.5% or lower (Chart I-5, top panel). The Price Paid component of both the Philly Fed and Empire State Manufacturing Surveys already captures this impact. The return of producer price deflation in China guarantees that weak US import prices will add to domestic deflationary pressures (Chart I-5 third panel). The recent strength in the dollar will only amplify imported deflation (Chart I-5, bottom panel). A deflationary shock is an immediate problem for businesses and creates a huge risk for household incomes because it exacerbates the already violent contraction in aggregate demand. In the coming months, the weakest nominal GDP growth since the Great Depression will depress profits. BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy team expects S&P 500 operating earnings per share to drop from $162 in 2019 to no further than $104 in 2020.1 The profits of small businesses will suffer even more. Cash flow shortfalls will also cause corporate defaults to spike because many firms will not be able to service their debt (Chart I-6). Currently, 86% of the job losses since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis are temporary. However, if corporate bankruptcies spike too fast and too high, then these job losses will become permanent and household incomes will not recover quickly. A sharp but brief recession would turn into a long depression. Chart I-6Defaults Can Only Rise …But The Liquidity Crisis Will Not Morph Into A Solvency Crisis… In response to the aggregate demand shock caused by COVID-19, global central banks are supporting lending. These policies are an essential ingredient to flatten the default curve and minimize the permanent hit to employment and household income. The US Fed is acting as the central banker to the world. The US Fed is acting as the central banker to the world. Its new quantitative easing program has already added $1.36 trillion in excess reserves this quarter. Moreover, the Fed’s decision to loosen supplementary liquidity ratios and capital adequacy ratios allows the interbank and offshore markets to normalize. Meanwhile, the Fed’s swap lines with global central banks have surged by $432 billion since the crisis began. Its FIMA facility also permits central banks to pledge Treasurys as collateral to receive US dollars. These two programs let global central banks provide dollar funding to the private sector outside the US. Chart I-7Easing Liquidity Stress The Fed is also supporting the credit market directly. The $250 billion Secondary Market Corporate Facility, the $500 billion Primary Market Corporate Facility and the $600 billion Main Street New Loan and Expanded Loan Facilities, all mean that firms with a credit rating above Baa or a debt-to-EBITDA ratio below 4x can still get funding. Together with the $100 billion Term-Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility, these measures will prevent a liquidity crisis from morphing into a solvency crisis in which healthier borrowers cannot roll over their debt. Such a crisis would magnify the inevitable increase in defaults manyfold.  The market is already reflecting the impact of the Fed’s programs. Corporate spreads for credit tiers affected by the Fed’s support are narrowing (Chart I-7). Spreads reflective of liquidity conditions, such as the FRA-OIS gap, the Commercial paper-OIS spread and cross-currency basis-swap spreads, have also begun to normalize. The narrowing of bank CDS spreads demonstrates that unlike the GFC, the current crisis does not threaten the viability of major commercial banks (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Other central banks are doing their share. The Bank of Canada is buying provincial debt to ensure that the authorities directly tasked with managing the pandemic have the ability to do so. The European Central Bank has enacted a QE program of at least EUR1.1 trillion and enlarged the TLTRO facility while decreasing its interest rate, which cheapens the cost of financing for commercial banks. Moreover, the ECB has also eased liquidity and capital adequacy ratios for commercial banks. Last week, it announced that it would also accept junk bonds as collateral, as long as these bonds were rated as investment grade prior to April 7, 2020. …And Governments Are Pulling Levers… Chart I-8Record Fiscal Easing Governments, too, are ensuring that private-sector default rates do not spike uncontrollably and doom the economy to a repeat of the 1930s. Policymakers in the G-10 and China have announced larger stimulus packages than the programs implemented in the wake of the GFC (Chart I-8). The US’s programs already total $2.89 trillion or 13% of 2020 GDP. Germany is abandoning fiscal discipline and has declared stimulus measures totaling 12% of GDP. Italy’s package is more modest at 3% of GDP. Even powerhouse China is not taking chances. In addition to a larger fiscal package than in 2008, the reserve requirement ratio stands at 9.5%, the lowest level in 13 years, and the People’s Bank of China cut the rate of interest on excess reserves by 37 basis points to 0.35% (Chart I-9). The last cut to the IOER was in November 2008 and was of 27 basis points. This interest rate easing preceded a CNY4 trillion increase in the stock of credit, which played a major role in the global recovery that began in 2009. Hence, the recent IOER reduction, in light of the decline in loan prime rates and MLF rates, suggests that China is getting ready to boost its economy by as much as in 2008. Chart I-9China Is Pressing On The Gas Pedal Among the advanced economies, loan guarantees supplement growing deficits. So far, this protection totals at least $1.3 trillion. While guarantees do not directly boost the income and spending of the private sector, they address the risk of an uncontrolled spike in defaults. Therefore, they minimize the odds that rocketing temporary layoffs will morph into permanent unemployment. Section II, written by BCA’s Jonathan Laberge, addresses the question of fiscal policy and whether the packages announced so far are large enough to fill the hole created by COVID-19. While a deep recession is unavoidable, governments will provide more stimulus if activity does not soon stabilize. … While Banks And Household Balance Sheets Compare Favorably To 2008 Banks and the household sector, the largest agent in the private sector, entered 2020 on stronger footing than prior to the GFC. Otherwise, all the fiscal and monetary easing in the world would do little to support the global economy. If banks were as weak as when they entered the GFC, then monetary stimulus would have remained trapped in the banking system in the form of excess reserves. Both in the US and in the euro area, banks now possess higher capital adequacy ratios than in 2008 (Chart I-10). Moreover, as BCA Research’s US Investment Strategy service has demonstrated, the large cash holdings and low loan-to-deposit ratio of the US banking system reinforces its strength (Chart I-11).2  Thus, banks are unlikely to tighten credit standards for as long as they did after the GFC. Broad money expansion should outpace the post-GFC experience, as the surge in US M2 growth to a post-war record of 16% indicates. Chart I-10Banks Have More Capital Than In 2008… Chart I-11...And Have More Cash And Secure Funding     Consumers are also in better shape than in 2008. Last December, US household debt stood at 99.7% of disposable income compared with a peak of 136% in 2008. More importantly, financial obligations represented only 15.1% of disposable income, a near-record low. Limited financial obligations suggest that consumer bankruptcies should remain manageable as long as governments help households weather the current period of temporary unemployment (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, household indebtedness in Spain and Ireland has collapsed from 137% to 94% and from 183% to 85% of disposable income, respectively. Italy, despite its structural economic weakness, always sported a low private-sector debt load. A precautionary rise in the savings rate is unavoidable, but it will not match the magnitude of the increase that followed the GFC. The economy will recover quicker than it did following the GFC. The deep recession engulfing the world should not evolve into a prolonged depression because banks and household balance sheets are in a better state than in 2008. While the recovery will be chaotic, the velocity of money will not remain as depressed for as long as it stayed after 2008, which will allow nominal GDP to recover faster than after the GFC. Banks and households will be quicker to lend and borrow from each other than they were after the GFC. Consequently, the collapse in the consumption of durable goods (e.g. cars) has created pent-up demand, but not a permanent downshift in the demand curve (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Robust Household Finances Chart I-13Households' Pent-Up Demand   Bottom Line: The global economy is on track to suffer its worst contraction since the 1930s. However, the combination of aggressive monetary and fiscal stimulus will prevent a rising wave of defaults from swelling to a crippling tsunami that permanently curtails household income. Given that banks and households have stronger balance sheets than in 2008, when governments ease lockdowns, the economy will recover quicker than it did following the GFC. The evolution of any second wave of infection is the crucial risk to this view. The IMF’s forecast indicates that growth will suffer substantial downside relative to its baseline scenario if the second wave is strong and forces renewed lockdowns. In this scenario, the current package of stimulus must be augmented to avoid a depression-like outcome. A big problem for forecasters, is that we do not have a good sense of how the second wave of infections will evolve. Moreover, the ability to test the population and engage in contact tracing will determine how aggressive lockdowns will be. Therefore, we currently have very little visibility to handicap the odds of each path. Investment Implications Low inflation for the next 18 months will allow monetary conditions to stay extremely accommodative. Growth will recover in the second half of 2020, so the window to own risk assets remains fully open as long as we can avoid a second wave of complete lockdowns. The Dollar’s Last Hurrah The US dollar has become dangerously expensive. According to a simple model, the dollar trades at a premium to its purchasing-parity equilibrium against major currencies, which is comparable to 1985 or 2002 when it attained its most recent cyclical tops (Chart I-14). The dollar may not trade as richly against our Behavioral Effective Exchange Rate model, but this fair value estimate has rolled over (Chart I-14, bottom panel). A peak in global policy uncertainty may be the key to timing the start of the dollar’s decline. Policy will prompt downside risk created by the dollar’s overvaluation. The US twin deficit, which is the sum of the fiscal and current account deficits, is set to explode because Washington will expand the fiscal gap by 15~20% of GDP while the private sector will not increase its savings rate at the same pace. If US real interest rates are high and rising, then foreign investors will snap up US liabilities and finance the twin deficit. If real rates are low and falling, then foreigners will demand a much cheapened dollar (which would embed higher long-term expected returns) to buy US liabilities (Chart I-15). Chart I-14The Dollar Is Pricey Chart I-15Bulging Twin Deficits Are A Worry   Real interest rates probably will not climb, hence the twin deficit will become an insurmountable burden for the dollar. The Fed has not hit its symmetric 2% inflation target since the GFC and will not do so in the next one to two years. As a result, the Fed will not lift nominal interest rates until inflation expectations, currently at 1.14%, return to the 2.3% to 2.5% zone consistent with investors believing that the Fed is achieving its mandate. Thus, real interest rates will decline, which will drag down the USD. Relative money supply trends also point to a weaker dollar in the coming 12 months (Chart I-16). The Fed is easing policy more aggressively than other central banks and US banks are better capitalized than European or Japanese ones. Therefore, US money supply growth should continue to outpace foreign money supply. The inevitable slippage of dollars out of the US economy, especially if the current account deficit widens, will boost the supply of dollars globally relative to other currencies. Without any real interest rate advantage, the USD will lose value against other currencies. China’s policy easing is also negative for the dollar. China’s large-scale stimulus will allow the global industrial cycle to recover smartly in the second half of 2020, especially if the increase in pent-up demand fuels realized demand in the fall. The US economy’s closed nature and low exposure to both trade and manufacturing will weigh on US internal rates of return relative to the rest of the world, and invite outflows (Chart I-17). This selling will accentuate downward pressure created by the aforementioned balance of payments and policy dynamics.  Chart I-16Money Supply Trends Will Hurt The Dollar Chart I-17The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency   The dollar is also vulnerable from a technical perspective. A record share of currencies is more than one-standard deviation oversold against the USD (Chart I-18). According to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), outflows from EM economies have already eclipsed their 2008 records, and the underperformance of DM assets suggests that portfolio managers have aggressively abandoned non-USD assets. These developments imply that investors who wanted to move money back into the US have already done so. Chart I-18The Dollar Is Becoming Overbought Chart I-19The Dollar Is A Momentum Currency Investors should move funds out of the dollar, but not aggressively. The outlook for the dollar in the next year or two is poor, but the USD’s most important tailwind is intact: the global economy will recover, but for the time being, it remains in freefall. Moreover, among the G-10 currencies, the dollar responds most positively to the momentum factor (Chart I-19), which remains another tailwind. The greenback will remain volatile in the coming weeks. EM currencies offer a particularly tricky dilemma. They have cheapened to levels where historically they offer very compelling long-term returns (Chart I-20). However, EM firms have large amounts of dollar-denominated debt. The fall in EM FX and collapse in domestic cash flows will likely cause some large-scale bankruptcies. If a large, famous EM company defaults, then the headline risk would probably trigger a broad-based selling of EM currencies. For now, our Emerging Market Strategy service recommends that, within the EM FX space, investors favor the currencies with the lowest funding needs, such as the RUB, KRW and THB.3 Chart I-20EM FX Is Decisively Cheap For tactical investors, a peak in global policy uncertainty may be the key to timing the start of the dollar’s decline (Chart I-21). This implies that if a second wave of infections force severe lockdowns, the dollar rally may not be done. Chart I-21Uncertainty Must Recede For The Dollar To Weaken Fixed Income Government bonds have not yet depreciated and the exact timing of a price decline remains uncertain. However, Treasurys and Bunds offer an increasingly poor cyclical risk-reward ratio. Bond valuations continue to deteriorate. Our time-tested BCA Bond Valuation model shows that G-10 bonds, in general, and US Treasurys, in particular, are at their most expensive levels since December 2008 and March 1985, two periods that preceded major increases in yields (Chart I-22). Buy inflation-protected securities at the expense of nominal bonds. Liquidity conditions also represent a threat for safe-haven bonds. The wave of liquidity unleashed by global central banks is meeting record fiscal thrust. Thus, not only is the supply of government bonds increasing, but a larger proportion of the money injected by central banks will actually make its way into the real economy than after 2008. Record-low yields are vulnerable because the increase in the global money supply should prevent nominal GDP growth from slumping permanently as in the 1930s and after the GFC. Additionally, the sharp escalation in liquid assets on the balance sheets of commercial banks also creates an additional risk for bond prices (Chart I-23). Chart I-22Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Chart I-23Liquidity Injections Point To Higher Yields   QE also threatens government fixed income. After the GFC, real interest rates fell because investors understood that US short rates would remain at zero for a long time. Yet, 10-year Treasury yields rose sharply in 2009 as inflation breakevens increased more than the decline in TIPS yields. This pattern repeated itself following each QE wave (Chart I-24). In essence, if the Fed provides enough liquidity to allow markets to function well, then the chance of cyclical deflation decreases, which warrants higher inflation expectations. A lower dollar will be fundamental to the rise in inflation breakeven and yields. A soft dollar will confirm that the Fed is providing enough liquidity to satiate dollar demand and it will favor risk-taking around the world. Moreover, it will boost commodity prices and help realize inflation increases down the line. Chart I-24QE Lifts Breakevens And Yields Technical considerations also point to the end of the bond bull market, at least for the next 12 to 18 months. Investors remain bullish toward bonds, which is a contrarian signal. Our Composite Momentum Indicator has reached levels last achieved at the end of 2008, which suggested at that time that bond-buying was long in the tooth. Chart I-25Inflation Will Drive US/German Spreads In this context, investors with a cyclical investment horizon should consider bringing duration below benchmark. In the short term, this position still carries significant risks because the outlook for yields depends on the dollar. Another dollar spike caused by renewed lockdowns would also pin yields near current levels for longer. A lower-risk version of this bet would be to buy inflation-protected securities at the expense of nominal bonds, a position recommended by our US Bond Strategy service.4  Investors should be careful when betting that US yields will further converge toward German ones. The 10-year yield spread between US Treasurys and German Bunds has quickly narrowed, falling by 170 basis points from a high of 279 basis points in November 2018. Despite this sharp contraction, the spread remains elevated by historical standards. So far, the declining yield gap reflects the fall in policy rates in the US relative to Europe. Given that both the Fed and the ECB are at the lower bounds of their policy rates, short-rate differentials are unlikely to compress further. Instead, inflation differentials between the US and Europe must decline (Chart I-25). The inflation gap between the US and Europe probably will not narrow significantly this year. The IMF forecasts that Europe’s economy will underperform the US. Therefore, slack in Europe will expand faster than in the US. Moreover, monetary and fiscal support in the US is more aggressive than in Europe. Consequently, a weaker dollar, which will increase US inflation expectations relative to Europe, will put upward pressure on the US/German 10-year spread. However, if the European fiscal policy response starts to match the size of the US stimulus, then the spread between the US and Germany would narrow further. Ample liquidity also continues to underpin equity prices. Finally, for credit investors, our US Bond Strategy service recommends buying securities with abnormally large spreads and which the various Fed programs target. These include agency CMBS, consumer ABS, municipal bonds, and corporates rated Ba and above.5 Equities Chart I-26Investors Are Not Exuberant About Stocks Despite some short-term risks, we continue to favor equities on a 12- to 18-month investment horizon in an environment where a second wave of lockdowns can be avoided. Stock valuations have deteriorated, but they remain broadly attractive (see page 2 of Section III). While multiples are not particularly cheap, the equity risk premium remains very high. Alternatively, the expected growth rate of long-term earnings embedded in stock prices continues to hover at the bottom of its post-war distribution (Chart I-26). In other words, stocks are attractive because bond yields are low. Ample liquidity also continues to underpin equity prices. Our US Financial Liquidity Index points to rising S&P 500 returns in the coming months (Chart I-27). The Fed’s surging liquidity injections, which foreign central banks are mimicking, will only accentuate this backdrop. Moreover, in times of crisis, inflation expectations correlate positively with stock prices because “bad deflation” represents an existential threat to profitability.6 QE lifts inflation expectations, therefore, its bearish impact on bond prices should not translate into a fall in stock prices. Chart I-27Ample Liquidity For The S&P 500 Chart I-28Valuation And Monetary Condition Offset COVID-19 The combined valuation and liquidity backdrop are accommodative enough for stocks to persevere higher, despite the immense economic shock generated by COVID-19. The readings of our BCA Valuation and Monetary Indicator are even more accommodative for stocks than they were in Q1 2009, which marked the beginning of a 340% bull market (Chart I-28). Moreover, trend growth may have been less negatively affected by COVID-19 than it was by the GFC. Consequently, our US Equity Strategy service uses the historical pattern of profit rebounds subsequent to recessions to anticipate 2021 S&P 500 earnings per share of $162.1 Technicals remain supportive for stocks on a cyclical basis. Sentiment and momentum continue to be depressed, which could explain the resilience of stocks. Indeed, our Composite Momentum Indicator based on both the 13-week rate of change of the S&P 500 and traders’ sentiment lingers at the bottom of its historical distribution (Chart I-29). Moreover, the percentage of stocks above their 30-week moving average or at 52-week highs suggests that the average stock is still oversold (Chart I-30). Chart I-29Cyclical Momentum Is Not A Risk Yet Chart I-30The Median Stock Remains Oversold The problem for equity indices is that some sectors, such as tech, are very overbought on a near-term basis, which could invite profit-taking among the names that account for a disproportionate share of the index. If these sectors correct meaningfully, then the whole index would fall even if the median stocks barely vacillate. Nonetheless, all the forces listed in Section I suggest that the correction will not develop into a new down leg for the market. Energy stocks offer an attractive opportunity for investors, a view shared by our US Equity Strategy colleagues.1 The energy sector trades at its largest discount to the broad market on record and a weaker dollar normally lifts its relative performance (Chart I-31). Moreover, energy stocks have modestly outperformed the market since its March 23 bottom, despite the abyss into which oil prices tumbled. A pair trade is also available to investors. Healthcare and tech stocks have rallied in parabolic fashion relative to energy stocks. Oil may have capitulated on April 20 when the WTI May contract hit $-40/bbl. Storage capacity is essentially maxed out, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is set to restrict production from 12.3 million b/d to 8.5 million b/d, which will contribute generously to the 10 million bpd cut agreed by OPEC+. Countries such as Canada are also curtailing output, a move repeated among many oil producers. US shale firms, which have become marginal producers of oil, are also paring down their production. Shale producers are not done cutting, judging by both the decline in horizontal rig counts and WTI trading below most marginal costs (Chart I-32). The oil market will move away from its surplus position when the global economy restarts. Chart I-31An Opportunity In Energy Chart I-32Shale Production Will Fall Much Further   The slope of the oil curve confirms that the outlook for energy stocks is improving. On April 20, Brent and WTI hit their deepest contango on record, a development accentuated by the reflexive relationship between major oil ETFs and the price of the commodity itself. The structure of those ETFs was amended on April 21st, allowing a break in this reflexive relationship. The oil curve is again steepening, which after such a large contango often results in higher crude prices (Chart I-33). Meanwhile, net earnings revisions for the energy sector have become very depressed. Relative to the broad market, revisions are also weak but turning up. In this context, rising oil prices can easily lift energy stocks relative to the broad market. Chart I-33A Decreasing Contango Would Boost Oil Stocks Chart I-34Parabolic Moves Are Rarely Durable   A pair trade is also available to investors. Healthcare and tech stocks have rallied in parabolic fashion relative to energy stocks (Chart I-34). We constructed a global sector ranking based on the bottom-up valuation scores from BCA Research’s Equity Trading Strategy service. Based on this metric, energy stocks are attractively valued, while tech and healthcare are not (Chart I-35). A rebound in oil prices should prompt some portfolio rebalancing in favor of the energy sector.   Chart I-35A Bottom-Up Ranking For Sectors Valuations Finally, our US Equity Sector Strategy service also recommends investors overweight consumer discretionary stocks. This sector will benefit because robust household balance sheets will allow consumers to take advantage of low interest rates when the global economy recovers.7 Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 30, 2020 Next Report: May 28, 2020   II. The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart II-1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23rd, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart II-1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures Chart II-1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Instead, Chart II-2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.8 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart II-2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures Analysis by Bruegel provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table II-1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table II-1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries Table II-1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Chart II-3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.9 Chart II-3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart II-3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts II-1 – II-3 and Table II-1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart II-4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart II-4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart II-4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart II-5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). Chart II-5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart II-5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables II-2 and II-3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. Table II-2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions Table II-3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables II-2 and II-3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table II-2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Second, Table II-3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box II-1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box II-1 The “Bucket” Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The IMF “bucket” approach to estimating fiscal multiplier involves determining the multiplier that is likely to apply to a given country during “normal” circumstances, based on a set of structural characteristics associated with larger multipliers. This “normal” multiplier is then adjusted based on the following formula: M = MNT * (1+Cycle) * (1+Mon) Where M is the final multiplier estimate, MNT is the “normal times” multiplier derived from structural characteristics, Cycle is the cyclical factor ranging from −0.4 to +0.6, and Mon is the monetary policy stance factor ranging from 0 to 0.3. The Cycle factor is higher the more a country’s output gap is negative, and the Mon factor is higher the closer the economy is to the zero lower bound. Table II-B1 applies the IMF’s approach to the US, using the same structural score as the IMF presented in the note that described the approach. The table highlights that the approach suggests a US fiscal multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 given the maximum cycle adjustment proscribed by the rule, which we feel is reasonable given the unprecedented rise in US unemployment. We make no adjustment to the range for the zero lower bound. Table II-B1A Multiplier Estimate Of 1.1 – 1.6 Seems Reasonable For The US The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts II-1 - II-3 on pages 28-31. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. Chart II-6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart II-6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart II-6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table II-4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance. The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments. Table II-4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs Firms: On April 16th the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured. However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table II-5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The Table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. Table II-5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income Chart II-7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response. The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30th when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent. Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart II-7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.10 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart II-8 reproduces Chart II-3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart II-8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart II-8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Chart II-8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table II-6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.11 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table II-6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31st or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table II-6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart II-9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart II-9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart II-10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart II-10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart II-11). Chart II-11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort Chart II-12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart II-12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Chart II-13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Third, Chart II-13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we took a more positive stance on equities as both our valuation and monetary indicators had moved decisively into accommodative territory. While the global economy was set to weaken violently, the easing in our indicators suggested that stocks offered an adequate risk/reward ratio to take some risk. This judgment was correct. On a cyclical basis, the same factors that made us willing buyers of stocks remain broadly in place. Stocks are not as cheap as they were in late March, but monetary conditions have only eased further. Moreover, we are starting to get more clarity as to the re-opening of most Western economies because new reported cases of COVID-19 are peaking. Finally, the VIX has declined substantially but is nowhere near levels warning of an imminent risk to stocks and sentiment is still subdued. Tactically, equities are becoming somewhat overbought. However, this impression is mostly driven by the rebound in tech stocks and the strong performance posted by the healthcare sector. The median stock remains quite oversold. In this context, if the S&P 500 were to correct, we would not anticipate this correction to morph into a new down leg in the bear market that would result in new lows below the levels reached on March 23. For now, the most attractive strategy to take advantage of the supportive backdrop for stocks is to buy equities relative to bonds. In contrast to global bourses, government bonds are still massively overbought and trading at their largest premium to fair value since Q4 2008 and late 1985. Additionally, the vast sums of both monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy should lift inflation expectations and thus, bond yields. Real yields will likely remain at very low levels for an extended period of time as short rates are unlikely to rise anytime soon. The yield curve is therefore slated to steepen further. The dollar has stabilized since we last published but it has not meaningfully depreciated. On the one hand, the threat of an exploding twin deficit and a Fed working hard to address the dollar shortage and keep real rates in negative territory are very bearish for the dollar. But on the other hand, free-falling global growth and spiking policy uncertainty are highly bullish for the Greenback. A stalemate was thus the most likely outcome. However, we are getting closer to a rebound in growth in Q3, which means that the balance of forces will become an increasingly potent headwind for the expensive dollar. Thus, it remains appropriate to use rallies in the dollar to offload this currency. Finally, commodities continue to linger near their lows, creating a mirror image to the dollar. They are still very oversold and sentiment has greatly deteriorated, except for gold. Thus, if as we expect, the dollar will soon begin to soften, then commodities will appreciate in tandem. The move in oil prices was particularly dramatic this month. The oil curve is in deep contango and oil producers from Saudi Arabia to the US shale patch have begun cutting output. Therefore, oil is set to rally meaningfully as the global economy re-opens for business. The large balance sheet expansion by the Fed and other global central banks will only fuel that fire. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Gauging Fair Value," dated April 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see US Investment Strategy Special Report "How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 1: A 50-Year Bottom-Up Case Study," dated March 30, 2020 and US Investment Strategy Special Report "How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 2: It’s Complicated," dated April 6, 2020 available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM Domestic Bonds And Currencies," dated April 23, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Buying Opportunities & Worst-Case Scenarios," dated March 17, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Life At The Zero Bound," dated March 24, 2020 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Is The Bottom Already In?" dated April 21, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report "Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed's Anti-Virus Measures," dated April 14, 2020 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 “Bad deflation” reflects poor demand, which constrains corporate pricing power. “Good deflation” reflects productivity growth. Good deflation?? does not automatically extend to declining real profits and it is not linked with falling stock prices. The Roaring Twenties are an example of when “good deflation” resulted in a surging stock market. 7  Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril," dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8  Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 9  Please note that Chart II-3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 10 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, www.bcaresearch.com. 11 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.

In the spring of 2018 we initiated a size preference of large caps at the expense of small caps. At the time, we went against the grain as the investment community was arguing that small caps would offer the best protection from President’s Trump trade hawkishness. The reasoning was that small caps are domestically oriented and would benefit from a rising dollar given low export exposure. While we were slightly offside for a quarter, this size preference recouped all the losses by October 2018 and never looked back since then. Our thesis was predicated upon relative indebtedness, relative profitability and relative profit margin outlook, all of which were in favor of large caps. Earlier this year when markets were convulsing we instituted a risk management metric with a rolling 10% stop on this size preference in order to protect profits for our portfolio.1 Bottom Line: This past Tuesday our 10% rolling stop was triggered and we are obeying this stop, monetizing 37% gains since inception and we are moving to the sidelines on the size bias. Please look forward to reading our upcoming Weekly Report for a more detailed discussion of why we are compelled to move to a neutral size bias. Footnotes 1    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Daily Report, "Closing Out All High-Conviction Calls" dated March 20, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Analyses on Chinese autos and Brazil are available below. Highlights The Fed’s aggressive monetization of public and some private debt has inspired investors to allocate cash to risk assets However, a number of cyclical indicators continue to flash red or amber, suggesting this rally is not about a cyclical economic recovery.  Continue underweighting EM equities and credit markets versus their DM counterparts. We will wait for a correction to assess whether to maintain or close our shorts on EM currencies. Feature Neither the ongoing plunge in corporate profits nor a great deal of uncertainty about the economic outlook justify this rally. It seems the sole driver of the rally from March’s lows has been the Federal Reserve’s enormous purchases of various securities. These unprecedented actions are crowding out investors into riskier parts of fixed-income markets and persuading them to purchase equities. Neither the ongoing plunge in corporate profits nor a great deal of uncertainty about the economic outlook justify this rally. It Has Not Been About Profits And Valuations In the past two months, the S&P 500 index has experienced not only the fastest and steepest crash on record, but also the speediest rebound (Chart I-1). Investors have had to make swift investment decisions amid extremely low economic visibility. Chart I-1The S&P 500: The Fastest Crash And Speediest Recovery Indeed, it is fair to say that during the mayhem and carnage many investors operated on a “sell now, think later” principle, and on the subsequent rebound with a “buy now, ask questions later” framework. Remarkably, the plunge and subsequent recovery in global share prices has been so rapid that even equity analysts’ forward earnings estimates cannot keep up. The top panel of Chart I-2 illustrates that the global forward EPS usually tracks the world equity index. When share prices rally, analysts upgrade their earning expectations; when equities sell off, analysts’ downgrade their earnings outlooks. In the past month, analysts have continued to slash forward EPS estimates despite the strong equity rebound. As a result, the 12-month forward P/E ratio for global stocks is back to its post-2008 highs (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Chart I-2Rising Share Prices Amid Collapsing Forward Earnings Chart I-3China: A Decoupling Between Economy And Equities Elsewhere, Chart I-3 illustrates China’s domestic orders for 5000 industrial enterprises historically correlated with the Shanghai Composite equity index. Since early this year, domestic orders have plummeted due to the country-wide lockdown. Yet equity prices in China have not fallen enough to reflect the downfall in economic activity and corporate profits. This underscores that investors’ purchases of global and Chinese stocks in the past month have been driven by factors other than the corporate profit outlook.   This leaves two rationales for justifying roaring equity purchases in recent weeks: (1) liquidity overflows due to central banks’ balance sheet expansion, and (2) valuations. We examine the first argument in this report and will revisit the topic of equity valuations in forthcoming publications. In a nutshell, although equity valuations may be cheap in EM, Europe and Japan, they are expensive in the US. Nevertheless, the US stock market has been substantially outperforming EM and DM ex-US equities. Further, the most expensive stocks in the US – FAANGM – have by far outperformed the rest. Chart I-4China: A Decoupling Between New And Old Economy Stocks In China, the ChiNext index – a Nasdaq proxy of the onshore market – has massively outperformed the Shanghai Composite index, which is dominated by “old” economy stocks (Chart I-4). The trailing P/E ratios on the ChiNext and Shanghai Composite indexes are 62 and 14, respectively. In short, the fact that most expensive equity segments/sectors have outperformed suggests that cheap valuation have not been the key driver of this rally. Bottom Line: Neither profits nor considerations of equity valuations have been the driving factor behind the recent equity rally.  The Sole Driver Of This Rally The Fed’s aggressive monetization of public and some private debt has inspired investors to allocate cash to risk assets. The US broad money supply is surging at a record pace, both in nominal and real terms (Chart I-5). Is there too much money relative to the size of financial assets? Chart I-5US Broad Money Supply Is Booming Today we explore how the level of US broad money supply (M2) relates to the market cap of all bonds and stocks denominated in US dollars. US broad money (M2) supply encompasses all deposits and cash of residents and non-residents in and outside the US. Chart I-6 exhibits the ratio of US broad money supply (M2) relative to the sum of: Chart I-6The US: Broad Money Supply Relative To Equity And Bond Market Capitalization the US equity market capitalisation (the Wilshire 5000); the market cap values of all US-dollar bonds, including government, corporate, mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities and commercial mortgage backed securities (the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Index); the market cap value of US dollar-denominated bonds issued by EM governments and corporations; minus the Fed’s and US commercial banks’ holdings of all types of securities. The higher this ratio is, the more US dollar deposits (liquidity) is available per one dollar of outstanding securities – excluding those held by the Fed and US commercial banks. Based on the past 25 years, the US M2-to-market value of securities ratio is somewhat elevated. This means liquidity is relatively abundant. However, this may not preclude the ratio from drifting higher like it did in 2008. This scenario would be consistent with a renewed selloff in equity and credit markets. Interestingly, back in January, the ratio was almost at a 20-year low – i.e., money supply (liquidity) was tight relative to the market value of outstanding US dollar-denominated securities. This was contrary to the prevalent perception in the global investment community that in 2019 the advances in share prices and credit markets were liquidity-driven. We discussed what constitutes pertinent liquidity for financial assets in our January 16 report titled, A Primer On Liquidity. The key takeaways of the report were: Money supply – not central bank assets – is the ultimate liquidity available to economic agents to purchase goods and services as well as invest in both real and financial assets. Changes in the velocity of money are as important as those in money supply. Yet forecasting changes in the velocity of money is a near-impossible task, as it entails foreseeing the behavior of economic agents. A large and expanding stock of money in and of itself does not guarantee greater liquidity for asset markets. Gauging liquidity flows to asset markets boils down to predicting investor behavior. Liquidity flows into financial assets when “animal spirits” among investors improve, and vice versa. Bottom Line: Even though the US money supply is expanding at a record pace, the key to financial asset price fluctuations is willingness among investors to purchase those assets. In turn, willingness to allocate cash to securities is generally driven by (1) the potential income and cash flow generation by securities issuers; (2) uncertainty related to future income (the risk premium); and (3) the opportunity cost of holding cash. Presently, the opportunity cost of holding cash is the sole reason to buy risky securities. Cash flow/income generation is currently impaired for the majority of equities and credit instruments. Further, there is a great deal of uncertainty about issuers’ ability to generate cash/income for investors – i.e., the required risk premium should be very high. All of these circumstances make the risk-reward profile of this rally poor. Reasons To Fade This Rally There are several market-based indicators that do not corroborate a further run-up in EM and DM equity prices. Our Risk-On / Safe-Haven Currency Ratio has struggled to gain traction (Chart I-7, top panel). It is not confirming the rebound in EM share prices. It is essential to emphasize that this indicator is agnostic to the direction of the US dollar, as it is calculated as the ratio of cyclical commodities currencies (AUD, NZD, CAD, ZAR, BRL, MXN, CLP, RUB, and IDR) versus safe-haven currencies such as the Swiss franc and Japanese yen on a total-return basis – i.e., all exchange rates include the cost of carry. Chart I-7Various Reflation Indicators Have Been Slugish Our Reflation Confirming Indicator has not been sending a strong bullish reflation signal either (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This indicator is composed of an equally-weighted average of industrial metals, platinum and US lumber prices. The Global Cyclical-to-Defensive Equity Sectors Ratio has formed a classic head-and-shoulders pattern, and has broken down (Chart I-8, top panel). The latest rebound has not altered this pattern. Therefore, the path of least resistance for this ratio is still down, which entails underperformance of the global cyclical equity sector versus global defensives. The latter often occurs in selloffs. Similarly, the relative performance of Swedish versus Swiss non-financial stocks has failed to rebound, having experienced a major breakdown in March (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Swedish non-financial stocks are much more cyclical than Swiss ones. Finally, the global business cycle is experiencing its deepest recession in the post-World War II period, with the pace and nature of the recovery remaining highly uncertain. Chart I-9 portends global EPS in SDR, which is the proper measure given the greenback’s weight in SDR is 58%, the euro’s 39%, the yen’s 11%, and the yuan’s 1%. Chart I-8Global Cyclical Stocks Have Not Outperformed Chart I-9Global Corporate EPS In Perspective Global EPS shrank by 28% in 2001-2002 and by 40% in the 2008 recession. Given the current recession will be deeper, global EPS will likely shrink by about 50%. We do not think equity markets are discounting such a dire outcome after the recent rally. Bottom Line: A number of cyclical indicators continue to flash red or amber, suggesting this rally is not about a cyclical economic recovery.     Investment Strategy We closed our short position in EM equities on March 19, and on the March 26 report we argued that it was too late to sell but still too early to buy. Given the rally in global equities is overstretched from a short-term perspective, we will wait for a correction to assess whether to maintain or close our shorts on EM currencies. Chart I-10EM Currencies And S&P 500 That said, we maintained our underweights in both EM stocks and credit versus their DM peers. Also, we have continued to short EM currencies versus the US dollar. Chart I-10 demonstrates that EM currencies have failed to rally despite the strong rebound in the S&P 500.   Given the rally in global equities is overstretched from a short-term perspective, we will wait for a correction to assess whether to maintain or close our shorts on EM currencies. For dedicated EM equity managers, our recommended overweights are Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, Russia, central Europe, Mexico and Peru. Our underweights are Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, India and the Philippines. We are neutral on other bourses. Last week we published two reports for fixed-income investors: EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains and EM Domestic Bonds And Currencies. In the first report we assessed individual EM countries' vulnerabilities to foreign debt and discussed strategies for EM sovereign and corporate credits. In the second report, we upgraded our stance on EM local markets from underweight to neutral. Before upgrading to a bullish stance, we would first need to upgrade our stance on EM currencies.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Chinese Auto Sales: Disappointments Ahead Chinese automobile sales plunged 42% year-on-year over the first quarter of this year, due to the Covid-19 lockdowns (Chart II-1). We still expect auto sales in China to be flat or very mildly negative year-on-year over the period of April-December of this year. First, official data shows the growth rate for nominal disposable income was falling toward zero, but realistically it was probably negative in the first quarter (Chart II-2, top panel). Very sluggish household income growth – in combination with the still-elevated uncertainty of the job market (Chart II-2, bottom panel) – will restrain Chinese auto demand. Chart II-1Auto Sales In China: A Rate Of Change Recovery Ahead Chart II-2Sluggish Household Income Growth Will Constrain Chinese Auto Demand While household income growth will recover from current level later this year, it will likely remain much lower than the previous years’ 8-9% growth. Second, Chinese households are already quite leveraged. Their debt levels reached over 94% of annual disposable income, almost as high as in the US (Chart II-3). Third, peer-to-peer lending – an important source of auto loans in recent years – has shrunk considerably and is unlikely to pick up this year (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Chinese Household Debt Burden Is High Chart II-4Auto Financing Has Become More Scarce Bank lending rates for household consumption loans and peer-to-peer lending rates are currently about 5% and 10%, respectively. Such borrowing costs are restrictive given the tame growth of household income. Finally, the stimulus packages intended to boost automobile demand this year are no greater than they were last year. This entails that the net stimulus is close to zero. The focus of this year’s stimulus remains on the demand for new energy vehicles (NEV), which is in line with the central government’s strategic goal. Given that NEVs account for only 5% of auto sales, any boost to NEV demand is unlikely to make a huge difference in aggregate auto sales.  Another boost to auto sales is the relaxation of license controls in the first-tier cities. The extent of these measures is so far considerably smaller than it was last year. About 60,0001 additional new license plates have so far been added, accounting for only 0.2% of Chinese auto sales. This number was 180,000 last year.2  This year local governments in 16 cities announced cash subsidies for auto buyers.3 Despite larger geographic coverage, the amount of cash subsidies is similar to what it was last year – at about 3% of the retail price. This is too small to make any meaningful impact on auto sales. Investment Implications The lack of considerable new stimulus for auto purchases and lower household income growth will make the recovery in passenger car sales halting and hesitant. The lack of considerable new stimulus for auto purchases and lower household income growth will make the recovery in passenger car sales halting and hesitant. Chinese auto stock prices in the domestic A-share market are breaking down (Chart II-5). Lingering demand contraction as well as possible price cuts will further curtail auto producers’ profits. Disappointing Chinese auto sales will lead to sluggish auto production and, consequently, to weak demand for metals like steel, aluminum and zinc. Chinese auto exports will outpace its imports (Chart II-6). As China accounts for about 30% of global auto sales and production, rising net exports of automobiles from China may diminish other global producers’ margins. Chart II-5Avoid Chinese Auto Stocks For Now Chart II-6Rising Chinese Auto Net Exports Are Negative To Other Global Auto Producers   Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com   Brazil: Not Out Of The Woods Yet We believe risks to Brazilian assets remain to the downside. Political infighting among various branches of power and state institutions will depress consumer and business confidence, lengthening the recession. Chart III-1Brazil: Recurring Crises Political infighting among various branches of power and state institutions will depress consumer and business confidence, lengthening the recession (Chart III-1). Political turmoil also reduces the probability of structural reforms. This combined with a delayed economic recovery will further strain the already precarious public debt dynamics.  First, the country is in a full-blown political crisis. The Supreme Court's decision to reject Bolsonaro's nomination for Director of the Federal Police manifests broad-based political infighting among Brazilian institutions. Further, the Supreme Court has started an investigation into the President as calls for impeachment intensify among both the public and the Congress. The rift between President Bolsonaro and Congressional President Maia is especially worrisome. Given Maia’s future political ambitions, we do not expect a truce between the two. On the contrary, they will continue to stand off in order to assert control over the fragmented Congress. As a result, structural reforms such as the national tax program and privatizations will be delayed. Second, Bolsonaro’s popularity is also plunging due to his slow and controversial response to the COVID-19 outbreak. This week, Bolsonaro’s disapproval ratings jumped above those of former president Lula da Silva, and public support for impeachment is now over 54%. Third, Congress has allowed the government to go over the limit of fiscal spending this year, which has resulted in almost 1.2 trillion reais in emergency fiscal spending, or about 16% of GDP. This will push the gross public debt-to-GDP ratio to well above 100% by the end of 2020. Chart III-2This Large Gap Makes Public Debt Dynamics Untenable In order to stabilize its public debt-to-GDP ratio, a government’s borrowing costs should be below nominal GDP growth. Brazil fails to meet this condition. Local currency interest rates at 5.5% are well above nominal GDP growth, which will likely be negative in 2020 (Chart III-2). This assures unsustainable debt dynamics. Finally, in terms of monetary policy, the central bank’s policy rate cuts have not been efficiently transmitted to the real economy, as discussed in our March 31st Special Report. Borrowing costs for companies and households remain elevated relative to their nominal income growth. Overall, the sole feasible way for Brazil to stabilize its public debt-to-GDP ratio is to push nominal GDP growth above interest rates. Further, this is only possible with falling interest rates and further material currency depreciation. The continued currency devaluation represents a risk to foreign investors holding local assets. Investment Recommendations Continue to underweight Brazil within EM equity and credit portfolios. We reiterate our trade to short the BRL versus the US dollar. Even though the BRL is moderately cheap (Chart III-3), there is still considerable downward pressure on the currency. The BRL is tightly correlated with commodities prices (Chart III-4). Until these do not bottom out, the real will continue depreciating. Critically, the real needs to depreciate to lift nominal GDP growth above borrowing costs. The latter is essential to stabilize public debt dynamics. Chart III-3The BRL Is Only Modestly Cheap Chart III-4The BRL Correlates With Commodities Prices Finally, we are underweight both local currency and US$ denominated bonds in Brazil due to worrisome public debt dynamics and high foreign currency stress.   Juan Egaña Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Shanghai announced to add 40,000 new license plates this year while Hangzhou increased 20,000 new license plates. 2   There were 100,000 additional license plates approved by Guangzhou province and an additional 80,000 by Shenzhen in 2019. 3   The cash subsidies are about RMB1000-3000 for buying regular cars, RMB3000-5000 for car replacement (e.g., scrapping their autos with Emission Standard 3 and buying autos with new Emission Standard 6), and RMB5000-10,000 for NEV purchases. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations