Financial Markets

The SPX 12-month forward P/E climbed to a new near two-decade high recently, as it almost kissed off the 21 handle (bottom panel). While investors begin to worry about lofty valuations, keep in mind that calendar 2020 profits are far from trend EPS. Peering across the valley to calendar 2021 and 2022 profits reveals that there is still more room for valuations to expand. Our sense is that the SPX some time next year can reclaim our trend EPS estimate near $162, and thus bring down the forward multiple to a more reasonable level (middle panel).  The Fed’s ultra-dovish stance is a key driver behind the multiple expansion phase of late. Tack on the recent dip in fed funds futures below the zero lower bound, and factors have fallen into place for a sustained valuation overshoot phase. Bottom Line: We remain constructive on the prospects of the broad equity market on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. ​​​​​​​

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report on China from Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Matt will discuss whether China’s President Xi Jinping is losing his political mandate. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The pandemic is likely to have a more severe impact on Main Street than Wall Street, which helps explain why stocks have rallied off their lows even as bond yields have remained depressed. Equity investors are hoping that central banks will keep rates lower for longer, while fiscal easing will revive demand. The end result could be lower bond yields within the context of a full employment economy – a win-win for stocks.  In the near term, these hopes could be dashed, given bleak economic data, falling earnings estimates, and rising worries about a second wave of the pandemic. Longer term, an elevated equity risk premium and the likelihood that the pandemic will not have a significantly negative effect on the supply side of the economy argue for overweighting stocks over bonds. Negative real rates will continue to support gold prices. A weaker dollar later this year will also help. Divergent Signals Chart 1Conflicting Signals Global equities have rallied 24% off their March lows. The S&P 500 is down only 12% year-to-date and is trading close to where it was last August. In contrast, bond yields have barely risen since March. The US 10-year note currently yields 0.63%, down from 1.92% at the start of the year. The yield on the 30-year bond stands at a mere 1.3%. While crude oil and industrial metal prices have generally tracked bond yields, gold prices have rallied alongside equities (Chart 1). It would be easy to throw up one’s hands and exclaim that markets are behaving schizophrenically. Yet, we think it is possible to reconcile these seemingly divergent price patterns in a way that sheds light on where the major asset classes are likely to go in the months ahead. Two important points should be kept in mind: Bonds and industrial commodities tend to reflect the outlook for the real economy (i.e., Main Street) whereas stocks reflect the outlook for corporate earnings (i.e., Wall Street). The two often move together but can occasionally diverge in important ways. Stock prices and bond yields will tend to move in tandem when deflationary pressures are intensifying; however, the two often move in opposite directions when monetary policy is becoming more accommodative. The former prevailed in early March whereas the latter has been the dominant force since central banks have opened up the monetary spigots. The Real Economy Is Suffering The current economic downturn will go down as the deepest since the Great Depression. The IMF expects global GDP to contract by 3% this year, compared with a flat reading in 2009. GDP in advanced economies is projected to fall by 6%, twice as bad as in 2009 (Chart 2). Chart 2Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year Unemployment rates are also likely to reach the highest levels since the 1930s. The US unemployment rate spiked to 14.7% in April. Even that understates the true increase in joblessness. The labor force has shrunk by 8 million workers since February. If everyone who had left the labor force had been considered unemployed, the unemployment rate would have jumped to nearly 19% (Chart 3). Unemployment among less-skilled workers rose more than among the skilled. Joblessness also increased more among women than men (Chart 4). Chart 3Increase In Joblessness Is Understated Chart 4Unemployment Has Risen More For Less Skilled Workers And Women The one silver lining is that unlike in past recessions, temporary layoffs have accounted for the vast majority of job losses (Chart 5). This suggests that the links between firms and workers have yet to be severed. As businesses reopen, the hope is that most of these workers will be able to return to their jobs, fueling a rebound in spending. Chart 5Temporary Layoffs Account For Most Of The Recent Increase In Unemployment Risks Of A Second Wave Will that hope be realized? As we discussed last week, the virus that causes COVID-19 is highly contagious – probably twice as contagious as the one that caused the Spanish flu.1 While some social distancing measures will persist even if governments relax lockdown orders, the risk is high that we will see a second wave of infections. Even if a second wave ensues, we do not expect stocks to take out their March lows. In many places, the second wave could come on top of a first wave that has barely abated. This is precisely what happened during the Spanish flu pandemic (Chart 6). Stock prices and credit spreads have closely tracked the number of Google queries about the coronavirus (Chart 7). If the number of new infections begins to trend higher, concern about the pandemic will deepen. This makes us somewhat wary about the near-term direction of risk assets. Chart 6The Lesson From The Spanish Flu: The Second Wave Could Be Worse Than The First Chart 7Joined At The Hip   March Was The Bottom In Equities Nevertheless, even if a second wave ensues, we do not expect stocks to take out their March lows. This is partly because the cone of uncertainty around the virus has narrowed. We now know that the fatality rate from the virus is around 1%-to-1.5%, which makes COVID-19 ten times more deadly than the common flu, but still less lethal than SARS or MERS, let alone some avian flu strains which have mortality rates upwards of 50%. A few treatments for the virus are on the horizon. Gilead’s remdesivir appears to be effective in treating COVID-19. Blood plasma injections also look promising. A vaccine developed by researchers at the University of Oxford has been shown to be safe on humans and effective against COVID-19 on rhesus monkeys. Production of the vaccine has already begun, and if it works well on humans, the Oxford scientists expect it to be widely available by September.2 The Stock Market Is Not The Economy Then there is the issue of Main Street versus Wall Street. US equities account for over half of global stock market capitalization. Tech and health care are the two largest sectors in the S&P 500. The former has benefited from the shift towards digital commerce in the wake of the pandemic, while the latter is a highly defensive sector that has gained from the flurry of interest in new treatments for the disease (Chart 8). Chart 8AUS Equity Sectors: Winners And Losers From The Pandemic (I) Chart 8BUS Equity Sectors: Winners And Losers From The Pandemic (II) Even within individual sectors, the impact on Wall Street has been more muted than on Main Street. For example, spending on consumer discretionary goods and services has plummeted across the real economy over the past few months. Yet, this has not hurt equity investors as much as one might have expected. Amazon accounts for 55% of the retail sector’s market capitalization. Home Depot is in second place by market cap. Home Depot’s stock is trading near an all-time high, buoyed by increased spending on home improvement projects by people stuck at home. McDonald's, which is benefiting from the shift to take-out ordering, is the largest stock in the consumer services sector (followed by Starbucks). Contrary to the claim that the stock market is blissfully ignorant of the mounting economic damage, those sectors that one would expect to suffer from a pandemic-induced downturn have, in fact, suffered. Airline stocks, which account for less than 2% of the industrials sector, have plunged. The same is true for cruise ship stocks. Bank stocks have also been beaten down, reflecting fears of heightened loan losses. Likewise, lower oil prices have undercut the stocks of energy exploration and production companies (Chart 9). At the regional level, non-US stocks, with their heavy weighting in deep cyclicals and financials, have underperformed their US peers. Small caps have also lagged their large cap brethren, while value stocks have trailed growth stocks (Chart 10). Chart 9Sectors Expected To Suffer From A Pandemic-Induced Downturn Have, In Fact, Suffered Chart 10Non-US Stocks, Small Caps, And Value Stocks Have Underperformed Tech stocks are overrepresented in growth indices, which helps explain why growth has outperformed value. Tech companies also tend to carry little debt while sporting large cash holdings. Companies with strong balance sheets have greatly outperformed companies with weak ones since the start of the year (Chart 11). Chart 11Firms With Strong Balance Sheets Have Excelled Relative To Weak Ones Chart 12Real Rates Have Come Down This Year In addition, growth companies have disproportionately benefited from the dramatic decline in real interest rates (Chart 12). A drop in the discount rate raises the present value of a stream of cash flows more the further out in time those cash flows are expected to be realized.   What Low Bond Yields Are Telling Us Doesn’t the decline in real long-term interest rates signal that future economic growth will be considerably weaker? If so, doesn’t this nullify the benefit to growth companies in particular, and the stock market in general, from a lower discount rate? Not necessarily! While lockdowns have led to a temporary drop in aggregate supply, they have not severely undermined the long-term productive capacity of the economy. Unlike during a war, no factories have been destroyed. And while heightened unemployment could lead to some atrophying of skills, the human capital base has remained largely intact. Chart 13 shows that output-per-worker eventually returned to its long-term trend following the Great Depression. Chart 13No Clear Evidence That The Great Depression Lowered Long-Term Trend Growth What the pandemic has done is made some forms of capital obsolete. We probably will not need as many cruise ships or airplanes as we once thought. But these items are not a huge part of the capital stock. And while some brick and mortar stores will disappear, this was part of a long-term shift toward a digital economy – a shift that has been raising productivity levels, rather than lowering them. Demand Is The Bigger Issue So why have long-term real interest rates fallen so much? The answer has more to do with demand than supply. Investors are betting that the pandemic will force central banks to keep interest rates at ultra-low levels for a very long period of time. All things equal, such an extended period of low rates might be necessary if the pandemic causes households to increase precautionary savings and prompts businesses to cut back on investment spending for an extended period of time. All things are not equal, however. As discussed in greater detail in Box 1, if real interest rates fall by enough, aggregate demand could still return to levels consistent with full employment since lower interest rates would discourage savings while encouraging capital expenditures. What if interest rates cannot fall by enough because of the zero-lower bound? In that case, fiscal policy would have to pick up the slack. Either taxes would need to be cut so that the private sector becomes more eager to spend, or the government would need to undertake more spending directly on goods and services. When interest rates are close to zero, worries about debt sustainability diminish since debt can be rolled over at little cost. In the end, the economy could end up in a new post-pandemic equilibrium where real interest rates are lower and fiscal deficits are larger. Applying Theory To Practice Framed in this light, we can make sense of what has happened over the past few months. The drop in long-term bond yields in February and early March was driven by falling inflationary expectations and rising financial stress. Yields then briefly jumped in mid-March as panicky investors dumped bonds in a mad scramble to raise cash. Not surprisingly, stocks suffered during this period. The Federal Reserve reacted to this turmoil by cutting rates to zero. It also initiated large-scale asset purchases, which injected much needed cash into the markets. In addition, the Fed dusted off the alphabet soup of programs created during the financial crisis, while launching a few new ones in an effort to increase the availability of credit and reduce funding costs. Other central banks also eased aggressively. As Chart 14 illustrates with a set of simple examples, even a modest decline in long-term interest rates has the power to significantly raise the present value of future cash flows. To compliment the easing in monetary policy, governments loosened fiscal policy (Chart 15). The point of the stimulus was not to raise GDP. After all, governments wanted most non-essential workers to remain at home. What fiscal easing did do was allow many struggling households and businesses to meet their financial obligations, while hopefully having enough income left over to generate some pent-up demand for when businesses did reopen their doors. Chart 14What Happens To Earnings During A Recessionary Shock? Chart 15Will It Be Enough? Ultimately, equity investors are hoping for an outcome where fiscal policy is eased by enough to eventually restore full employment while interest rates stay low well beyond that point in order to induce the private sector to keep spending: A win-win combination for stocks. Chart 16Gold Prices Move In The Opposite Direction To Real Rates The discussion above can also explain the divergent moves in commodity prices. Most industrial metals are consumed not long after they are produced. This makes industrial metal prices highly sensitive to the state of the global business cycle. In contrast, almost all of the gold that has ever been unearthed is still around. This makes gold an anticipatory asset whose price reflects expectations about future demand. Since owning gold does not generate any income, the opportunity cost of holding gold is simply the interest rate (Chart 16). When real interest rates rise, as they did briefly in early March when deflationary fears intensified, gold prices tend to fall. When real interest rates decline, as they did after central banks slashed rates and restarted large-scale QE programs, gold prices tend to rise. Investment Conclusions The current environment bears a passing resemblance to the one that prevailed in late 2008. Following the stock market crash in the wake of Lehman’s bankruptcy, the S&P 500 rallied by 24% between November 20, 2008 and January 6, 2009 to reach a level of 935. Had you bought stocks on that day in January, you still would have made good money over a 12-month horizon. However, you would have lost money over a 3-month horizon since the S&P 500 ultimately dropped to as low as 667 on March 6. During that painful first quarter of 2009, the economic surprise index remained firmly below zero, while earnings estimates continued to drift lower, just like today (Chart 17). As noted above, we do not expect stocks to take out their March 2020 lows, but a temporary sell-off would not surprise us, especially against a backdrop where a second wave of the pandemic looks increasingly likely. Chart 17Is Today A Replay Of Late 2008/Early 2009? Chart 18Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon Despite our near-term concerns, we continue to think that stocks will outperform bonds over a 12-month horizon. The equity risk premium remains elevated, particularly outside the US (Chart 18). While non-US stocks do not have as much exposure to tech and health care, they do benefit from very cheap valuations. European banks are trading at washed out levels (Chart 19). The cyclically-adjusted PE ratio for EM stocks is near record lows (Chart 20). Investors should consider increasing exposure to non-US equities if global growth begins to reaccelerate this summer. Chart 19European Banks Are Trading At Washed Out Levels Chart 20EM Stocks Are Very Cheap Given our view that central banks want real rates to stay low and will refrain from tightening monetary policy even if inflation eventually begins to rise, investors should maintain above-average exposure to gold. A weaker US dollar later this year will also help bullion. Box 1The Role Of Monetary And Fiscal Policy Following Savings Shocks Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Risks To The U,” dated May 7, 2020. 2  Charlie D’Agata, “Oxford scientists say a vaccine may be widely available by September,” cbsnews (April 30, 2020). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Even though EM equities appear cheap, the key near-term threats to them are their poor fundamentals and a renewed sell off in the S&P 500. Given the immense uncertainty, the current equity risk premium (ERP) should be at the upper end of its historical range. Hence, the discount rate – the sum of the risk-free rate and the ERP – should be reasonably high. This makes US equity valuations rather expensive. The key risk to our defensive strategy is that the rally in global growth stocks evolves into a full-fledged mania. Feature Every investor is aware that global corporate profits have collapsed due to nationwide lockdowns and profits will eventually recover as the lockdowns are gradually eased. This thesis, though, is not helpful for equity investors. To price equities properly, investors need to know how low corporate profits will fall and how fast and strong the eventual recovery will be.  Currently, visibility on the magnitude and speed of the decline in profits and the subsequent recovery is factually nil. In fact, very few companies are providing any guidance. There is enormous uncertainty surrounding the pace at which economies will be reopened, the possibility of secondary infection outbreaks and the discovery of a remedy or a vaccine for this virus. Besides, it is hard to forecast how fast animal spirits will revive among consumers and businesses worldwide. Thus, it is impossible to reliably forecast the magnitude and pace of both the decline in corporate profits and the subsequent recovery. What framework should investors use to value stocks when facing extremely low visibility? The CAPE Ratio Presently, the best method for valuing stocks is the Cyclically-Adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. This is a structural valuation measure that looks beyond the profit cycle, i.e., removes the cyclicality of earnings per share (EPS) from P/E ratio calculations. When the profit outlook is as muddy as it is today and the possible range of outcomes is very wide, it is safe to assume that in the next 12-18 months corporate profits will revert to their historical trend, i.e., drop below and then recover to their structural trend. This is a better conjecture than any attempt to forecast the magnitude and speed of both the profit plunge and subsequent recovery. Hence, the appropriate question for investors at this time is: what is the forward P/E multiple on equities assuming that EPS will plummet and then recover to their historical trend over the next 12 to 18 months? The CAPE model provides the answer to this question. Presently, the best method for valuing stocks is the Cyclically-Adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. Chart I-1 illustrates our EM CAPE model, showing EM equities as cheap as they were at previous major bear market bottoms. The EM CAPE is presently 12.5 assuming EM EPS plunge further in the coming months but recover to their long-run trend in 12-18 months from now (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Our measure for US CAPE presently stands in high 20s, well above its historical average of 18 (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Equity Valuations Are Low Chart I-2US Equity Valuations Are Expensive   Box I-1 on page 3 elaborates how our CAPE model is built and how it differs from Shiller’s CAPE ratio. Even though EM equities are very cheap, the key near-term threats to them are two-fold: (1) EM fundamentals remain downbeat, which is creating a near-term risk to share prices; and (2) a renewed sell off in the S&P 500 would drag EM stocks lower, despite cheap EM equity valuations. In the next section, we explore US equity valuations in a bit more detail. BOX I-1 Our CAPE Versus The Shiller CAPE: Differences In Methodologies Due to the lack of historical data for EM, we were unable to use Robert Shiller's methodology for constructing the CAPE ratio for developing markets. The Shiller method uses a 10-year moving average of EPS to calculate the cyclically adjusted EPS. However, in the case of EM aggregate EPS, data only goes back to 1986. If we were to calculate a 10-year moving average for EM EPS, we would lose 10 years of data, and the valuation indicator would only start in 1996. This is too short a time-frame for a structural valuation indicator. Chart I-3Comparing Two CAPE Methodologies Instead, we used the following methodology to construct the CAPE ratio for EM: We deflated EM EPS and EM equity prices (both in US dollar terms) by US consumer price inflation to get EM EPS and EM share prices in real (inflation-adjusted) US dollar terms. Then we ran a regression of EM EPS in real US dollar terms against a time trend. The resulting trend line represents the cyclically adjusted or structural EPS in real US dollar terms (Chart I-1, bottom panel on page 1). Finally, we divided EM stock prices in real US dollar terms by the cyclically-adjusted real US dollar EM EPS trend line. The outcome is the EM CAPE ratio (Chart I-1, top panel on page 1). To be sure that our methodology produced a reasonable outcome, we computed a CAPE ratio using our methodology for the US stock market and compared it with the Shiller CAPE ratio. Chart I-3 illustrates that our methodology generated a CAPE ratio that is similar to Shiller’s CAPE ratio. We are therefore confident that the results generated by our CAPE methodology are robust and sensible. Low Visibility = High Equity Risk Premium Chart I-4CAPE Ratio Negatively Correlates With Corporate Bond Yields It is a well-known fact that US equity multiples are very high. However, a common narrative in the investment community often justifies currently high US equity multiples by very low interest rates. One consideration that is missing in this argument is the equity risk premium. The P/E ratio is negatively correlated to the discount rate.1 The discount rate is the sum of the risk-free rate and the equity risk premium (ERP). Chart I-4 demonstrates that US CAPE ratio has been inversely correlated with corporate bond (BAA) yields. The latter includes both risk-free government bond yields and corporate credit spreads. Presently, one should use an ERP that is materially higher than its historical mean. Investors are currently facing record high uncertainty related to the business cycle as well as the structural trends in economic, political and geopolitical spheres. In short, enormous lingering uncertainty warrants using an ERP that is at the upper range of its historical trend. Critically, ERP is not a static variable. Yet, many equity valuation models assume that the ERP is constant and, therefore, compare equity multiples with risk-free rates. Such models are wrong-headed because a change in the ERP can in itself cause large fluctuations in share prices. Chart I-5Estimated US Equity Risk Premium Going forward, visibility on both the evolution of the virus containment measures and the global business cycle will eventually improve and, thereby, decrease ERPs that investors require. This will produce a lower discount rate heralding higher equity multiples. As of today, however, the tremendous uncertainty about the outlook still warrants a higher ERP. Chart I-5 illustrates that the US ERP based on our CAPE model is presently 270 basis points. It is elevated but still below historic peaks recorded in 2008 and 2011. Provided we face extremely limited visibility about the global outlook, we contend that the US ERP will likely rise in the short run. The latter will depress US equity valuations and prices. Bottom Line: Given the immense ambiguities investors are facing in regard to the business cycle and to economic, political and geopolitical trends, the ERP should be at the upper end of its historical range. Hence, the discount factor – the sum of the risk-free rate and the ERP – should be reasonably high. We conclude that US equity valuations are rather expensive despite the very low risk-free rate. Falling US stocks will drag EM share prices lower.  EM Versus The S&P 500: Three Conditions For A Reversal Chart I-6Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus US The relative EM versus US CAPE ratio is shown on Chart I-6. According to it, EM equities relative to their US counterparts are as cheap as they were at their previous major bottom in 2001. Nevertheless, valuation is not a good timing tool. For EM to start outperforming the S&P 500, three conditions are required: 1. China’s economy should embark on a cyclical recovery that is greater than the natural snapback in activity that it has been experiencing in the wake of the end of its lockdown. So far, the mainland economy is still in a snapback phase rather than in an expansion mode. 2. Global equity sector leadership should rotate from growth to value stocks, such as resource-related and banks. This has not occurred yet. The EM equity index is more sensitive to the performance of financials than the S&P 500 is. Table I-1 and I-2 represents individual EM and US sector weights in terms of both market cap and total corporate earnings in their respective equity benchmark. Financials account for 36.6% of EM total earnings and 20.9% of EM market cap. The same ratios for US financials in America’s broad equity index are 22.2% for earnings and 10.5% for the market cap. Table I-1EM Equity Sector Earnings And Market Cap Weights Table I-2US Equity Sector Earnings And Market Cap Weights   Further, EM equity prices remain highly correlated to global materials stocks (Chart I-7). As we discussed in our October 10, 2019 report, the rationale is as follows: both industrial metal prices and EM equities are driven primarily by China. Enormous lingering uncertainty warrants using an ERP that is at the upper range of its historical trend. 3. The US dollar should enter an extended bear market. The greenback has been resilient despite the Federal Reserve’s outright debt monetization and the general risk-on mood in global equity and credit markets. Further, the EM ex-China currency index has failed to rebound despite the noteworthy rally in the S&P 500 since late March (Chart I-8). Chart I-7EM Stocks Correlate With Global Materials Chart I-8EM Currencies Have Failed To Rally   For the greenback to depreciate, US dollars should be recycled overseas via augmented US imports or capital outflows from the US. It seems that none of this is currently taking place. The dollar is probably experiencing the last leg of its structural bull market that commenced in 2011. In financial markets, the final phase of a structural trend can last longer and run further than many investors expect. Odds are that the greenback will overshoot before topping out. Chart I-9 presents the real effective exchange rate for the US dollar, the euro and the Japanese yen, based on unit labor costs. This is our favored currency valuation measure. It reveals that the greenback is already expensive, but that its valuation can become even more expensive and reach two standard deviations above fair value before the US dollar peaks. In turn, according to the same measure, valuations of commodity currencies like NZD, AUD and CAD have downshifted considerably (Chart I-10). Nevertheless, they are not yet very cheap. Therefore, further undershoots cannot be ruled out. Chart I-9G3 Currency Valuations Chart I-10Commodity Currencies Valuations   Bottom Line: The conditions for EM stocks to begin outperforming the S&P 500 have not yet been satisfied. EM outperformance is not imminent. The Key Risk The key risk to our strategy of not chasing the recent equity rebound is as follows: The rally in expensive global growth stocks could evolve into a full-fledged mania. The latter would then lift the broader equity index, including value stocks. The average retail investor in any corner of the world can now make the case for an exponential rise in growth stocks: major central banks are printing money, risk-free interest rates are at zero, businesses in “new economy” are relatively immune to COVID shutdowns and, moreover, they represent the future. All conditions for a bubble formation are present: a concept that captures the average person’s imagination, good fundamentals and solid past performance, as well as liquidity overflow.  Growth companies that are leading this rally are very expensive and over-owned while the laggards – the value stocks – have a ruinous profit outlook. The only problem with this thesis is that these stocks have already rallied massively over the past decade and are consequently expensive and over-owned (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Each Decade Had A Mania Can they still go higher, dragging up overall equity indexes? They can, as the human imagination has no limits. If retail investors continue piling up on stocks – and there is some evidence they have been doing so – share prices will rise despite the expensive valuation of growth companies and the disastrous profit outlook for value stocks. Like any bubble, this mania, if it occurs, will eventually culminate with a crash. Investment Conclusions Chart I-12Growth And Value Stocks EM equities have become cheap and oversold, which is why we closed our short position in EM stocks on March 19. Nevertheless, we have not yet recommended buying or overweighting EM stocks. The near-term outlook remains risky and EM valuations could remain depressed for a while given that investors currently face zero visibility. Consistently, the risk-reward of global and EM equities is yet not attractive. The basis is as follows: Growth companies that are leading this rally are very expensive and over-owned while the laggards – the value stocks – have a ruinous profit outlook (Chart I-12).  For now, we continue recommending underweighting EM versus DM equities. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnote 1   The P/E ratio inversely correlates to the discount rate: P/E ratio = (Payout rate x (1 + Growth rate)) / (Discount rate – Growth rate)

Highlights COVID-19 & The Economy: Australia is now in its first recession in 30 years, thanks to lockdown measures to contain the spread of COVID-19. Yet the nation’s rates of infection and death from the virus are relatively low, which should allow for a faster reopening of the domestic economy. Policy Responses: The RBA has taken extraordinary measures to cushion the blow from the lockdowns, like cutting policy rates to near-0% and capping shorter maturity bond yields through quantitative easing. The Australian government has also been aggressive in providing fiscal stimulus. These measures give the economy a better chance of seeing a “v”-shaped recovery as the lockdown restrictions are eased. Fixed Income Strategy: Downgrade Australian government bonds to neutral within global fixed income portfolios: the RBA has little room to cut rates, inflation expectations are too low and the structural convergence to global yields is largely complete. Favor inflation-linked bonds and investment grade corporate debt over government debt, as both now offer better value. Feature Chart 1The Australian Bond Yield Convergence Story Is Over Australia has a well-deserved reputation as a wonderful place to live, regularly sitting near the top of annual “world’s most livable countries” lists. A big reason for that is the stability of the economy, which has famously not suffered a recession since 1991. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed that happy economic story, with Australia now in the midst of a deep recession. Yet even during this uncertain time, Australia is living up to its reputation as a livable country, with one of the lowest rates of COVID-19 infection among the major economies. This potentially sets up Australia as an economy that can recover from the pandemic – and the growth-crushing measures used to contain its spread - more quickly than harder-hit countries like the US and Italy. For global fixed income investors, Australia has also been a very pleasant place to spend some time. The local bond market has enjoyed a stellar bull run since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, with policy rates and yields converging to much lower global levels (Chart 1). We have steadfastly maintained a structural overweight recommendation on Australian government bonds since December 2017. Over that time, the benchmark yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Australia government bond index declined -168bps, delivering a total return of +17.6% (in local currency terms). That soundly outperformed the global government benchmark index by 5.7 percentage points (in USD-hedged terms). However, just like the nation’s recession-free streak, Australia’s status as a secular bond outperformer is coming to an end. Just like the nation’s recession-free streak, Australia’s status as a secular bond outperformer is coming to an end. In this Special Report, we take a closer look at the Australian economy and fixed income landscape after the shock of the global pandemic. Our main conclusion is that most of the juice has been squeezed out of the Australian government bond yield global convergence trade. There are, however, some interesting opportunities still available in other parts of the Australian fixed income universe, like corporates and inflation-linked bonds. Yes, Recessions Can Actually Happen In Australia Chart 2A V-Shaped Recovery Is Widely Expected During the record streak of recession-free growth in Australia, the annual growth of real GDP has never dipped below 1.1%. The fact that a recession was avoided in 2009, given the degree of the shock from the Global Financial Crisis, is a testament to the balance within the Australian economy; consumer spending is 55% of GDP, business investment is 12%, government spending is 24% and exports are 25%. This stands out in contrast to more imbalanced economies like the US (where consumer spending is 70% of GDP) and Germany (where exports are 47% of GDP). Yet the unique nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has forced shutdowns across the entire economy, has nullified that advantage for Australia. There is no part of the economy that can avoid a major slowdown to help prevent a full-blown recession in 2020. Yet while expectations have adjusted to this new short-term reality, there appears to be a broad consensus that this Australian recession will be a short-lived “V” rather than an extended “U”. That can be seen in the forecasts of the Bloomberg Consensus survey and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), both of which are calling for a year-over-year decline in real GDP growth of at least -7% in Q2/2020. That will represent the low point of the recession, with growth expected to steadily recover over the subsequent year, with annual real GDP growth reaching +7% by the second quarter of 2021 (Chart 2). The Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index suffered the single greatest monthly decline in the 47-year history of the series in April. Yet there was only a modest decline in the longer-run expectations component of that survey, which remains above recent cyclical lows (bottom panel) This is a message consistent with the RBA and Bloomberg consensus forecasts, where economic resiliency is expected. One reason for that relative optimism among Australian consumers is that COVID-19 has not hit the country as hard as other nations. A recent survey of Australian consumers conducted by McKinsey in April showed that 65% of respondents named “the Australian economy” as their biggest COVID-19 related concern. At the same time, only 33% of those surveyed cited “not being able to make ends meet” as their main worry related to the virus (Chart 3). Other responses to the survey showed a similar divide, with greater concern shown for the state of the overall Australian nation compared to worries about one’s own economic or health outlook. Chart 3Australians Worrying More About The Nation Than Their Own Situation For an economy that has not seen a recession in over a generation, a relative lack of concern over one’s own financial health – even in a global pandemic that has paralyzed the world economy – may not be that surprising. Another reason for that relative optimism is that Australia has, so far, escaped relatively unscathed from the spread of COVID-19 compared to other nations. Australia has, so far, escaped relatively unscathed from the spread of COVID-19 compared to other nations. The number of new daily COVID-19 cases is now only 1 per million people, according to the Johns Hopkins University data on the virus. This is down from the peak of 20 per million people reached on March 28, and substantially below the numbers seen in countries more severely struck by the virus like the US and Italy (Chart 4). Australia has also seen a relatively low fatality rate from the virus, with only 1.4% of confirmed cases resulting in deaths (Chart 5). Chart 4The COVID-19 Wave Has Crested Down Under Chart 5Australia Has Weathered The Pandemic Much Better Than Others Given these low rates of infection and death, it is likely that Australia will be able to reopen its economy faster than other nations. The Australian government has already announced an easing of the COVID-19 lockdown measures, which will include the opening of restaurants (with limited seating) and schools (on a staggered schedule). There is even talk of creating a “trans-Tasman travel bubble” with neighboring New Zealand, which has similarly low rates of COVID-19 infection. Yet even when Australians can begin resuming a more “normal” life, the backdrop for consumer spending will be constrained by relatively low income growth and high consumer debt levels (Chart 6). Real consumer spending has struggled to grow faster than 2-3% over the past decade and, with household debt now up to a staggering 190% of disposable income, a faster pace of spending is unlikely even as the economy reopens. Chart 6Weak Consumer Fundamentals Chart 7Australian Businesses Are Retrenching Among the other parts of the Australian economy, the near-term outlook is gloomy, but there are potential areas where the damage to growth could be more limited. Capital Spending Business fixed investment has been flat in real terms over the past year. With corporate profit growth already slowing rapidly and likely to contract because of the recession, firms will look to cut back on capital spending to preserve cash, leading to a bigger drag on overall growth from investment (Chart 7). According to the latest National Australia Bank business survey conducted in March, confidence has collapsed to lower levels than seen during the Global Financial Crisis, while capital spending and employment expectations have also declined sharply – trends that had already started before the COVID-19 breakout. Chart 8No Rebound In Housing Housing The housing market has long been a source of both strength and vulnerability for the Australian economy. While the days of double-digit growth in house prices are in the past, thanks to greater restrictions on banks for mortgage lending and worsening affordability, Australian housing was showing signs of life before the COVID-19 outbreak. National house prices were up +2.8% on a year-over-year basis in Q4/2019, while building approvals were stabilizing (Chart 8). That nascent housing rebound was choked off by the virus, with the Westpac-Melbourne Institute “good time to buy a home” survey plunging 30 points in April to the lowest level since February 2008. While the RBA’s interest rate cuts over the past decade have helped lower borrowing costs in Australia, the gap between the RBA cash rate and variable mortgage rates has been steadily widening (bottom panel). This suggests a worsening transmission from monetary policy into the most interest-sensitive parts of the economy like housing. Australian banks have been more stringent on mortgage lending standards over the past couple of years, which likely explains some of the widening gap between the RBA cash rate and mortgage rates. However, Australian banks have also seen an increase in their funding costs over that same period, both for onshore measures like the Bank Bill Swap Rate and offshore indicators like cross-currency basis swaps (Chart 9). Those funding costs have plunged in recent weeks, in response to the RBA’s aggressive monetary policy easing measures to help mitigate the hit to growth from COVID-19. The US Federal Reserve’s decision to activate a $60 billion currency swap line with the RBA back in March also helped reduce offshore funding costs for Australian banks. It is possible that the easing of funding costs could make banks more willing to make consumer and mortgage loans in the coming months, at lower interest rates, as the lockdown restrictions ease. This could help improve the transmission from easy RBA monetary policy to economic activity. Exports Demand for Australian exports was already starting to soften in the first few months of 2020. The year-over-year growth in total exports fell to 9.7% in March from a peak of 18.7% in July 2019. Exports to China, Australia’s largest trade partner, have held up better than non-Chinese exports (Chart 10). This was largely due to increased Chinese demand for Australian iron ore earlier in the year. Chart 9Bank Funding Pressures Have Diminished Iron ore prices have been declining more recently, but remain surprisingly elevated given the sharp contraction in global economic activity since March. This may be a sign that China’s reawakening from its own COVID-19 lockdowns, combined with more monetary and fiscal stimulus measures from Chinese policymakers, is putting a floor under the demand for Australian exports to China. Chart 10Australian Exports Will Not Rebound Anytime Soon Summing it all up, a major near-term economic contraction in Australia is unavoidable, but a relatively quick rebound could happen as domestic quarantine measures are lifted – especially given the significant amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus put in place by the RBA and the Australian government. Bottom Line: Australia is now in its first recession in 30 years, thanks to lockdown measures to contain the spread of COVID-19. Yet the nation’s rates of infection and death from the virus are relatively low, which should allow for a faster reopening of the domestic economy. A Powerful Policy Response To The Recession Almost every government and central bank in the world has introduced fiscal stimulus or monetary easing measures in response to the COVID-19 economic downturn. Australia’s policymakers have been particularly aggressive, both on the monetary and (especially) fiscal side. Monetary Policy The RBA has announced a variety of measures since late March to ease financial conditions and provide more liquidity to the economy, including: cutting the cash rate by 50bps to 0.25% the introduction of quantitative easing for the first time, buying government bonds in enough quantity in secondary markets to keep the yield on 3-year Australian government debt around 0.25% introducing a Term Funding Facility for the banking system under which authorized deposit-taking institutions can get funding from the RBA for three years at a rate of 0.25%, with additional funding available to increase lending to small and medium-sized businesses an increase in the amount and maturity of daily reverse repurchase (repo) operations, to support liquidity in the financial system setting up the currency swap line with the US Fed, providing US dollar liquidity to market participants in Australia. The RBA’s decisions on cutting the cash rate the 0.25%, and capping 3-year bond yields at the same level, sent a strong message to the markets that monetary policy must be highly accommodative until the threat of COVID-19 has passed. Fixed income markets have taken notice, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year Australian government bond falling from 1.30% just before the RBA announced the easing measures on March 19th to a low of 0.68% on April 1st. The yield has since rebounded to 0.95%, but this remains well below the level prevailing before the RBA eased. Those low interest rates have also helped to keep monetary conditions easy by dampening the attractiveness, and value, of the Australian dollar. The currency has historically been driven by three factors – interest rate differentials, commodity prices and global investor risk-aversion. With the RBA’s relentless rate cuts over the past decade, capped off by the measures introduced two months ago, the dominant factor on the currency has become interest rate differentials between Australia and other countries (Chart 11). The Aussie dollar has enjoyed a bounce as global equity markets have rebounded since the collapse in March, but remains well below levels implied by the RBA Commodity Price Index. The implication is that the upside in the currency will be capped by the RBA’s interest rate stance, which has taken all the formerly attractive carry out of the Aussie dollar. The RBA will need to maintain an accommodative stance for some time, as inflation – and inflation expectations – are likely to remain well below the central bank’s 2-3% target range. The RBA will need to maintain an accommodative stance for some time, as inflation – and inflation expectations – are likely to remain well below the central bank’s 2-3% target range. The new baseline forecast by the RBA calls for the Australian unemployment rate to double from 5.2% in Q1/2020 to 10% in Q2/2020, before drifting back down to 8.5% by Q2/2021 (Chart 12). The central bank sees the jobless rate returning to 6.5% in Q2/2022, but that will still not be enough to push headline or core CPI inflation back above 2% (middle panel). Chart 11Interest Rates Are The Main Driver Of The AUD Now Chart 12Inflation Is Dormant Down Under Inflation expectations have discounted a similar outcome. The Union Officials’ and Market Economists’ surveys of 2-year-ahead inflation expectations are both now under 2%. Market-based measures like the 2-year CPI swap rate are even more pessimistic, priced at a mere 0.12%! The recent plunge in oil prices is clearly playing a role in that extreme CPI swap pricing, but until there is some recover in market-based inflation expectations, the RBA will be unable to move away from its current emergency policy easing measures. Fiscal Policy The Australian government has been very aggressive in its economic support measures, including1: a so-called “JobKeeper Payment” to allow businesses to cover employee wages direct income support payments to individuals and households allowing temporary withdrawals from superannuation (retirement savings) plans direct financial support to businesses to “boost cash flow” temporary changes to bankruptcy laws to make it more difficult for creditors to demand payment increased financial incentives for new investment providing loan guarantees to small and medium-sized businesses temporarily easily regulatory standards (like capital ratios) for Australian banks, to free up more funds for lending The size of these combined measures is estimated to be 12.5% of GDP, according to calculations from the IMF (Chart 13). This puts Australia in the upper tier of G20 countries in terms of the size of the total government support measures, according to an analysis of fiscal policy responses to COVID-19 from our colleagues at BCA Research Global Investment Strategy.2 When looking at purely the fiscal policy response through tax changes and direct spending, and removing liquidity support and loan guarantees that may not be fully utilized, the Australian government’s stimulus response is 10.6% of GDP - the largest in the G20 (Chart 14). Chart 13Australian Policymakers Have Responded Aggressively To COVID-19 Chart 14Australia’s Planned Deficit Increase Is The Largest In The G20 Chart 15Australia Has The Fiscal Space To Be Aggressive The Australian government can deliver such a large response because it has the fiscal space to do it, with a debt/GDP ratio that was only 41.9% prior to the COVID-19 outbreak (Chart 15). This compares favorably to other countries that have delivered major stimulus packages but from a starting point of much higher levels of government debt. The Australian government can deliver such a large response because it has the fiscal space to do it. We do not see any downgrade risk for Australia’s sovereign AAA credit rating from the fiscal stimulus measures, despite the recent decision by S&P to put the nation on negative outlook. Australia will still have one of the lowest government debt/GDP ratios among the G20, even after adding in the expected increases in deficits for all the countries in 2020 (Chart 16). Chart 16Australia’s AAA Credit Rating Is Safe Net-net, the monetary and fiscal stimulus measures undertaken by Australian policymakers appear large enough to offset the immediate hit to the economy from the COVID-19 recession. This has important investment implications for Australian bond markets. The monetary and fiscal stimulus measures undertaken by Australian policymakers appear large enough to offset the immediate hit to the economy from the COVID-19 recession. Bottom Line: The RBA has taken extraordinary measures to cushion the blow from the lockdowns, like cutting policy rates to near-0% and capping shorter maturity bond yields through quantitative easing. The Australian government has also been aggressive in providing fiscal stimulus. These measures give the economy a better chance of seeing a “v”-shaped recovery as the lockdown restrictions are eased. Investment Conclusions We started this report by discussing the consistent outperformance of Australian government bonds versus other developed market debt over the past decade. After going through a careful analysis of the economy, inflation, monetary policy and fiscal policy, we now view the period of Australian bond outperformance as essentially complete. This leads us to make the following investment conclusions on a strategic (6-12 months) investment horizon. Duration: We recommend only a neutral duration stance for dedicated Australian fixed income portfolios; the RBA has little room to cut policy rates further; inflation expectations are too low; the nation is poised to rapidly emerge from COVID-19 lockdowns; and fiscal stimulus will be more than enough to offset the hit to domestic incomes from the recession. Country Allocation: Within global bond portfolios, we recommend downgrading Australia to neutral from overweight. The multi-year interest rate convergence story is largely complete, both in terms of central bank policy rates and longer-term bond yields. Our most reliable indicator for the future relative performance of Australian government bonds versus the global benchmark – the ratio of the OECD’s leading economic indicator for Australia to the overall OECD leading indicator – is increasing because of a greater decline in the non-Australian measure (Chart 17, second panel). This fits with the idea of the relative economic growth story turning into a headwind for Australian bonds after being a tailwind for the past few years. Within global bond portfolios, we recommend downgrading Australia to neutral from overweight.  Yield Curve: We recommend positioning for a steeper Australian government bond yield curve. The RBA is anchoring the short-end of the curve as part of its quantitative easing program, leaving the slope of the curve to be driven more by longer-term inflation expectations that are too depressed (third panel). Inflation-linked Bonds: We recommend overweighting Australian inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. As we discussed in a recent report, breakevens on Australian inflation-linked bonds are far too low on our fair value models, which include the sharp decline in global oil prices (fourth panel).3 Chart 17Move To Neutral Duration Exposure In Australia, While Favoring Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 18Australian Corporate Bonds Look More Attractive Now   Corporate Credit: We recommend going overweight Australian investment grade corporate debt versus government bonds. The recent spread widening has restored some value - especially when compared to the more modest increase seen in credit default spreads - while Australian equity market volatility, which correlates with spreads, has peaked (Chart 18). Also, the RBA has just announced that they will now accept investment grade corporates as collateral for its domestic repo market operations, which should increase the demand for corporates on the margin.4   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The full details of the Australian government economic response to COVID-19 can be found here: https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/Overview-Economic_Response_to_the_Coronavirus_2.pdf 2 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough?”, dated April 30, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low", dated April 28, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4https://www.rba.gov.au/mkt-operations/announcements/broadening-eligibility-of-corporate-debt-securities.html Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Treasuries: Despite surging issuance, long-dated Treasury yields will move only slightly higher this year, driven by a modest recovery in global demand. There is also a risk that a second wave of COVID infections will send yields to new lows. We recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark while hedging the risk of higher yields by entering duration-neutral curve steepeners. Negative Rates: The Fed will not cut rates into negative territory any time soon. Investors who are able to do so should go short fed funds futures contracts that are priced for negative rates. EM Sovereigns: US bond investors should avoid USD-denominated EM sovereign debt and focus instead on US corporate credit rated Ba and higher. Of the EM countries with large USD bond markets, Mexican debt looks most attractive on a risk/reward basis. Don’t Expect A Taper Tantrum The big announcement in bond markets last week was the Treasury department detailing its plans for note and bond issuance in the second and third quarters. Of course, with the CARES act injecting $2.8 trillion into the economy, investors were already prepared for a big step up in issuance.1 But the numbers are striking nonetheless, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Overall note and bond issuance will reach $910 billion in Q3, roughly equal to the 2010 peak as a percent of GDP (Chart 1). Issuance beyond the 10-year point of the curve (i.e. the 30-year bond and new 20-year bond) will far exceed its financial crisis highpoint (bottom panel). Many bond investors are understandably worried that surging issuance will put significant upward pressure on yields in the coming months. Long-maturity Treasury yields jumped after the Treasury’s announcement on Wednesday before reversing all of that bounce the following day. But despite the mild market reaction, many bond investors are understandably worried that surging issuance will put significant upward pressure on yields in the coming months, especially with the Fed paring its pace of Treasury purchases (Chart 2). Chart 1Gross Treasury Issuance Chart 2Fed Buying Fewer Treasuries Our base case outlook is that Treasury yields will be marginally higher by the end of the year, and the yield curve will be steeper.2 However, we do not foresee a Taper Tantrum-style bond market rout. Treasury supply will continue to expand in the months ahead. But on the flipside, the Fed’s forward rate guidance will remain very dovish. If investors believe that short-dated interest rates will stay pinned near zero for a long time, fear of significant losses will remain low and Treasury demand will keep pace with supply, even at the long-end of the curve. Chart 3No Taper Tantrum In 2020 Yes, the Fed has scaled back its pace of Treasury purchases during the past few weeks, removing a significant source of demand from the market. However, it has also given no indication that it intends to lighten up on monetary stimulus broadly speaking. Based on the Fed’s dovish posture, we can be sure that if surging issuance leads to undesirably high term premiums at the long-end of the Treasury curve, the Fed will quickly ramp purchases back up to squash them. In general, our view is that all dramatic bond sell-offs are caused by the market suddenly pricing in a much more hawkish Fed reaction function. This can be driven by surprisingly strong economic growth and inflation, or by investors collectively changing their assessments of how the Fed will react. In this regard, the 2013 Taper Tantrum is an interesting case study. The Treasury curve bear-steepened dramatically in 2013 after Fed Chair Ben Bernanke laid out the Fed’s plan for winding down asset purchases. But this is not a simple story of bond yields rising because the market reacted to less demand in the form of Fed purchases. Rather, yields rose so much because Bernanke signaled to investors that the overall stance of monetary policy was much less accommodative than they had previously thought. Notice that gold fell sharply during this period (Chart 3), not because of less direct demand for Treasuries but because a more hawkish Fed meant less long-run inflation risk. The dynamic is illustrated very clearly by the CRB Raw Industrials / Gold ratio (Chart 3, bottom panel). The ratio is highly correlated with long-dated Treasury yields, meaning that for yields to shoot higher we need to see either a surge in global demand (i.e. CRB commodity prices) or a hawkish shift in the Fed’s reaction function (i.e. a drop in the gold price). If, as we expect, global demand improves only modestly this year and the Fed remains steadfastly dovish, upside in both the CRB/Gold ratio and long-maturity Treasury yields will be limited. Bottom Line: Despite surging issuance, long-dated Treasury yields will move only slightly higher this year, driven by a modest recovery in global demand. There is also a risk that a second wave of COVID infections will send yields to new lows. We recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark while hedging the risk of higher yields by entering duration-neutral curve steepeners. Don’t Bet On Negative Rates Table 1Fed Funds Futures The massive amount of new issuance was not the only exciting development in fixed income markets last week. Short-dated yields also started to price-in the possibility of negative interest rates in the US! Table 1 shows the price of different fed funds futures contracts (as of Monday morning) and what funds rate those prices imply for each contract’s maturity month. We also show the return you would earn by taking an unlevered short position in each contract and holding to maturity, assuming that the actual fed funds rate remains unchanged. We assume that the fed funds rate will stay at its current level (0.05%) because the Fed has made it very clear that a negative policy rate is not an option that will be considered. As evidence, we present some excerpts from recent Fed communications. Fed Chair Jerome Powell from his March 15 press conference:3 So, as I’ve noted on several occasions, really, the Committee – as you know, we did a year-plus-long study of our tools and strategies and communications. And we, really, at the end of that, and also when we started out, we view forward guidance and asset purchases – asset purchases and also different variations and combinations of those tools as the basic elements of our toolkit once the federal funds rate reaches the effective lower bound – so, really, forward guidance, asset purchases, and combinations of those. You know, we looked at negative policy rates during the Global Financial Crisis, we monitored their use in other jurisdictions, we continue to do so, but we do not see negative policy rates as likely to be an appropriate policy response here in the United States. The Fed staff’s assessment of negative interest rates from the October 2019 FOMC minutes:4 The briefing also discussed negative interest rates, a policy option implemented by several foreign central banks. The staff noted that although the evidence so far suggested that this tool had provided accommodation in jurisdictions where it had been employed, there were also indications of possible adverse side effects. Moreover, differences between the US financial system and the financial systems of those jurisdictions suggested that the foreign experience may not provide a useful guide in assessing whether negative interest rates would be effective in the United States. FOMC participants’ assessment of negative interest rates from the October 2019 minutes:5 All participants judged that negative interest rates currently did not appear to be an attractive monetary policy tool in the United States. Participants commented that there was limited scope to bring the policy rate into negative territory, that the evidence on the beneficial effects of negative interest rates abroad was mixed, and that it was unclear what effects negative interest rates might have on the willingness of financial intermediaries to lend and on the spending plans of households and businesses. Participants noted that negative interest rates would entail risks of introducing significant complexity or distortions to the financial system. In particular, some participants cautioned that the financial system in the United States is considerably different from those in countries that implemented negative interest rate policies, and that negative rates could have more significant adverse effects on market functioning and financial stability here than abroad. Notwithstanding these considerations, participants did not rule out the possibility that circumstances could arise in which it might be appropriate to reassess the potential role of negative interest rates as a policy tool. It is always possible that the Fed’s view of negative interest rates will change in the future. However, this won’t happen any time soon. The Fed still has other zero-lower-bound policy options it can deploy before it gets desperate enough to re-consider negative rates. The Fed still has other zero-lower-bound policy options it can deploy before it gets desperate enough to re-consider negative rates. For example, one logical next step would be to bring back the Evans Rule. That is, specify economic targets (related to unemployment and inflation) that must be met before the Fed will consider lifting rates. If that sort of forward guidance is deemed insufficient, the Fed could adopt a plan recently advocated by Governor Lael Brainard and start to cap short-maturity bond yields.6 If it wants more stimulus after that it could gradually move further out the curve, capping bond yields for longer and longer maturities. According to the FOMC minutes, this sort of Yield Curve Control policy had more support among participants at the October 2019 FOMC meeting than did negative interest rates:7 A few participants saw benefits to capping longer-term interest rates that more directly influence household and business spending. In addition, capping longer-maturity interest rates using balance sheet tools, if judged as credible by market participants, might require a smaller amount of asset purchases to provide a similar amount of accommodation as a quantity-based program purchasing longer-maturity securities. However, many participants raised concerns about capping long-term rates. Some of those participants noted that uncertainty regarding the neutral federal funds rate and regarding the effects of rate ceiling policies on future interest rates and inflation made it difficult to determine the appropriate level of the rate ceiling or when that ceiling should be removed; that maintaining a rate ceiling could result in an elevated level of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet or significant volatility in its size or maturity composition; or that managing longer-term interest rates might be seen as interacting with the federal debt management process. By contrast, a majority of participants saw greater benefits in using balance sheet tools to cap shorter-term interest rates and reinforce forward guidance about the near-term path of the policy rate. Bottom Line: The Fed will not cut rates into negative territory any time soon. Investors who are able to do so should go short fed funds futures contracts that are priced for negative rates. For example, a short position in the June 2021 fed funds futures contract will earn an unlevered 6.5 bps if the fed funds rate remains unchanged and the position is held to maturity. No Buying Opportunity Yet In EM Sovereigns When assessing the outlook for the US dollar denominated sovereign debt of emerging markets we consider two main factors: Valuation, relative to both US Treasuries and US corporate credit. The outlook for EM currencies versus the dollar. Ideally, we want to move into EM sovereign debt when spreads look attractive relative to the domestic investment alternatives and when EM currencies are on the cusp of rallying versus the dollar. Valuation At first blush, value looks like it has improved considerably for EM sovereigns. The average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays EM Sovereign index is 167 bps wider than it was at the beginning of the year and the spread differential with the duration-matched Ba-rated US corporate bond index is elevated compared to the recent past (Chart 4). However, widening has been driven by a select few distressed countries (e.g. Ecuador, Argentina and Lebanon). When we strip those out and look only at the investment grade EM sovereign index (Chart 4, panels 3 & 4), the average spread looks relatively tight compared to a duration-matched position in Baa-rated US corporate credit. Chart 4Only A Few EMs Look Cheap Because country-specific trends often exert undue influence on the overall index, we find it helpful to look at value on a country-by-country basis. Chart 5A shows the average option-adjusted spread for major countries included in the Bloomberg Barclays EM Sovereign index. This chart makes no adjustments for credit rating or duration, and as such we see the lower-rated nations (Turkey, South Africa, Brazil) offering the widest spreads. Chart 5B shows each country’s spread relative to a duration and credit rating matched position in US corporate credit. Viewed this way, the most attractive opportunities lie in Mexico, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Colombia, Qatar and South Africa. Chart 5AUSD-Denominated EM Sovereign Debt By Country: Spread Versus Treasuries Chart 5BUSD-Denominated EM Sovereign Debt By Country: Spread Versus US Credit Currency Outlook Chart 6EM Currencies Are Linked To Global Growth Currency is important for EM sovereign spreads because a stronger local currency literally makes US dollars cheaper for the EM nation to acquire. This, in turn, makes its USD-denominated debt easier to service, leading to tighter spreads. Chart 6 shows that EM Sovereign excess returns versus US Treasuries closely track EM currency performance. We also observe a strong link between EM currencies and high-frequency global growth indicators like the CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index (Chart 6, bottom panel). Based on this, we would only expect EM currencies to strengthen when global demand starts to pick up. Further, as our Emerging Market strategists wrote in a recent report, EM central banks are behaving differently during this recession than they have in past downturns.8 In the past, EMs would often run relatively tight monetary policies in order to fend off currency depreciation in the hopes of preventing capital outflows. This time, EM central banks are cutting rates aggressively, allowing their currencies to depreciate but supporting domestic demand. This is bearish for EM currencies and sovereign spreads in the near-term, but will probably lead to stronger economic recovery down the road. At the country level, we assess how vulnerable each country’s currency is to further depreciation by looking at its ratio of exports to foreign debt obligations.9 This ratio is a measure of US dollars coming in over a 12-month period relative to 12-month US dollar debt obligations. It has a relatively tight correlation with the dollar-denominated sovereign spread (Chart 7A). Low-rated countries, like Turkey and South Africa, have relatively low export coverage of foreign debt obligations, while Russia and South Korea have relatively strong debt coverage. Combining Valuation & Currency Outlook Chart 7B shows the same measure of currency vulnerability on the horizontal axis, but shows EM spreads relative to duration and credit rating matched US corporate credit on the vertical axis. Here, we see that Russia offers poor valuation, but a relatively safe currency. Meanwhile, Colombia offers an attractive spread but has a poor currency outlook. In this chart, Mexico stands out as the most attractive on a risk/reward basis. Chart 7AEM Sovereign Spread Versus Currency Vulnerability Chart 7BEM Sovereign Spread Over US Credit Versus Currency Vulnerability You will notice that the three Middle Eastern countries that stood out as having attractive spreads in Chart 5B are not shown in Charts 7A and 7B. This is because some data are unavailable, and also because those countries operate with currency pegs. Despite attractive spreads in those countries, we would not advise long-run positions in the USD-denominated sovereign debt of Saudi Arabia, Qatar or UAE. As our EM strategists wrote in a recent Special Report, if oil prices remain structurally low in the coming years (~$40 range), pressure will grow for Saudi Arabia to break its currency peg and allow some depreciation.10  The same holds true for Qatar and UAE. A bet on those countries’ sovereign spreads today amounts to a bet on higher oil prices. Despite attractive spreads, we would not advise long-run positions in the USD-denominated sovereign debt of Saudi Arabia, Qatar or UAE. Bottom Line: US bond investors should avoid USD-denominated EM sovereign debt and focus instead on US corporate credit rated Ba and higher. Of the EM countries with large USD bond markets, Mexican debt looks most attractive on a risk/reward basis. Appendix: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. Right now, that means we are overweight corporate bonds rated Ba and higher, Aaa-rated Agency and non-agency CMBS, Aaa-rated consumer ABS and municipal bonds. We are underweight residential mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds rated B and lower. The below Table tracks the performance of these different bond sectors since the Fed’s March 23 announcement. We will use this Table to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy's success. Table 2Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes  1 For more details on the size and potential efficacy of the CARES act please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough?”, dated April 30, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Policy-Driven Bond Market”, dated May 5, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20200315.pdf 4  https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20191030.pdf 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20191030.pdf 6 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20191126a.htm 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20191030.pdf 8 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM Domestic Bonds And Currencies”, dated April 23, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 9 For more information on this ratio please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains”, dated April 22, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Saudi Riyal Devaluation: Not Imminent But Necessary”, dated May 7, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The Fed’s unorthodox monetary policy is aimed at quashing volatility, lifting asset prices and debasing the currency, all of which are equity market bullish. Grim, but backward looking, macro data are already reflected in the significant restaurant relative share price correction. Upgrade to neutral. Book profits in the underweight S&P rails portfolio position and lift exposure to neutral on the back of: a.) already reflected grim ISM services data, b.) resilient industry pricing power, c.) firming railroad profit margin backdrop and d.) encouraging signs from our EPS growth model.   Recent Changes Augment the S&P restaurants index to neutral, today. Upgrade the S&P railroads index to a benchmark allocation, today. Table 1 Feature The SPX made a fresh run to recovery highs last week, cheering forward looking news of reopening of the economy and neglecting backward looking downbeat employment and PMI releases. Extremely easy fiscal and monetary policies remain the dominant macro themes, and underpin our sanguine equity market view for the coming 9-12 months. While Bill Martin’s infamous 1955 portrayal of the Fed as “the chaperone who ordered the punch bowl removed just when the party was really warming up”,1 the Jay Powell led Fed has done the opposite, and rightly so: it has ordered and delivered a bottomless punchbowl. The Fed’s unorthodox monetary policy is aimed at quashing volatility (Chart 1), lifting asset prices and debasing the currency, all of which are equity market bullish. According to Leo Krippner’s shadow short rates (SSR) estimate, the shadow fed funds rate is negative and should continue to support the SPX (SSR shown inverted, Chart 2). Chart 1Vol Will Melt Chart 2Crumbling Shadow Rates Underpin The SPX…   In fact, there are two distinct avenues that declining interest rates underpin equities: First, falling interest rates are a boon to equities via a rising price-to-earnings multiple (SSR shown inverted, Chart 3). While the 12-month forward multiple is above a 20 handle, the highest point since the dotcom bubble era, using second and third fiscal year sell-side profit estimates – which better resemble trend EPS – results in a more tame forward P/E multiple with more upside (Chart 4). Second, while the Fed would never admit to it, it is trying to devalue the US dollar and reflate the global economy, which will indirectly boost S&P 500 revenues. As a reminder, 40% of SPX sales are internationally sourced and thus a falling greenback is a boon to S&P 500 turnover (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 3…Via Higher Valuations Keep in mind that most of global trade is conducted in USD and when trade collapses it creates a US dollar shortage (i.e. fewer US dollars are circulating around) that lifts the value of the reserve currency and vice versa. Cognizant of that, the Fed is trying to provide ample US dollar liquidity and aid in pushing the greenback lower (top panel, Chart 5). Chart 4Peer Across The EPS Valley, And Valuations Have Room To Rise Chart 5Depreciating USD Is A Boon For SPX Sales Drilling beneath the SPX’s surface, early-cyclical consumer discretionary equities are the primary beneficiaries of negative SSR. The top panel of Chart 6 shows that over the past three decades relative share prices are the mirror image of interest rates. This cycle, household finances are in order and coupled with generationally low interest rates signal that consumer spending will recover smartly as the economy opens up in coming quarters. Thus, consumer discretionary stocks should sustain their outperformance (middle & bottom panels, Chart 6). A small digression with regard to the reopening of the economy is in order. Pundits have been discussing and showing the three distinct waves of the Spanish flu as the closest parallel with the current pandemic. Chart 7 shows these three waves using UK data, but the UK equity market (and the DOW for that matter) did not really budge back then. Keep in mind this was in the midst of a recession as the Great War was about to end on November 11, 1918 (Remembrance Day). Chart 6Stick With Consumer Discretionary Exposure Chart 7The 1918 UK Parallel, Including Equities   While no one really knows how in the long-term this pandemic will affect the economy, the stock market, society in general and consumer behavior in particular, our sense is that uncertainty will continue to recede in the coming months irrespective of the second and third likely waves. Why? Because not only do governments know more about this invisible enemy, but they (and hospitals) will also be more prepared to deal with any future outbreaks. Moreover, given that there is a race to get a novel coronavirus vaccine (and treatment) the world over, a breakthrough will soon materialize; MRNA’s recent FDA phase II clinical trial for their vaccine candidate is a case in point. Receding uncertainty is great news for stock investors. Meanwhile, in recent research we highlighted that early-cyclical interest rate-sensitive equities do in fact lead the GICS1 sector pack in recessionary recoveries based on empirical evidence.2 As a reminder, in mid-April we lifted the S&P consumer discretionary sector to overweight and this week we are updating our views on a hard hit subindex. We are also upgrading a deep cyclical services industry to neutral. Preparing To Dine Out It no longer pays to be underweight the S&P restaurants index; upgrade to neutral today. Not only the reopening of the economy will, at the margin, bring back diners (take out mostly) to restaurants, but the two heavyweights that comprise 80% of the market cap of the S&P restaurants group are anything but discretionary. In our view, MCD is defensive and SBUX has become a staple. Thus, as the economy slowly reopens and store traffic picks up, these bellwether stocks will lead this index higher. Relative share prices have corrected to the twenty-year uptrend line and hover near the previous two breakout points in 2011/12 and 2015/16 where they should find enough support (top panel, Chart 8). With regard to macro data, most of the restaurant-relevant releases are looking in the rear view mirror. In other words, the trouncing in restaurant retail sales and employment, food-away-from-home PCE and even the collapse in the Restaurant Performance Index were “known knowns” (Chart 8). Therefore, all of this grim news is already reflected in the 30% drubbing in relative performance from peak-to-trough. Chart 8Grim Data Priced In Chart 9Dollar The Reflator Domestic restaurant sales should stabilize in the coming months. If the Fed manages to devalue the US dollar (please see discussion above), then even international revenues in general and Chinese sourced sales in particular will rekindle overall industry turnover (Chart 9). Keep in mind that China’s economy reopening is leading the global economy by about six weeks. Importantly, construction spending on restaurants is falling like a stone and this decline in supply and industry capex will provide a much needed offset to free cash flow generation (middle panel, Chart 10). Nevertheless, three key concerns keep us at bay and prevent us from turning outright bullish. First, net debt-to-EBITDA has taken a steep turn for the worst of late, and while it is mostly driven by the shortfall in cash flow, it is still quite unnerving (bottom panel, Chart 11). Second, there is margin trouble that restauranteurs have yet to work out, and a rising wage bill will continue to weigh on profit growth (second panel, Chart 11). Finally, relative valuations are lofty for our liking. On a 12-month forward P/E basis the S&P restaurants index is trading at 53% premium to the SPX and 26% above the historical mean (third panel, Chart 11). Chart 10Supply Restraint Is Positive Chart 11Watch These Risks Netting it all out, grim but backward looking macro data are already reflected in the significant restaurant relative share price correction. Lift exposure to a benchmark allocation. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P restaurants index to neutral for a relative loss of 13.7% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5REST – MCD, SBUX, YUMB, CMG, DRI. Upgrade Rails To Neutral Over the past three years we have been mostly on the right side of rails both in bull and bear phases; today we recommend cementing relative gains of 6.4% since inception, and lifting exposure to neutral. Rails are the largest transports subgroup and this services industry is showcasing impressive resilience in times of adversity. True, the latest ISM non-manufacturing survey made for grim reading. Both the headline number and most of the key subcomponents of the survey were tough to digest: the overall survey fell near the GFC lows (bottom panel, Chart 12), the Business Activity Index collapsed to 26%, an all-time low. While this survey can fall anew next month, we deem that extreme pessimism reigns supreme, and as the US economy is slated to reopen some semblance of normality will return in coming months. Tack on the improving export data out of China, and we are cautiously optimistic that rail hauling services will soon stage a comeback (middle panel, Chart 12). Chart 12As Bad As It Gets Chart 13Green Shoots The defensive nature of rails is most evident in industry pricing power (third panel, Chart 13). Railroad selling prices are holding their own despite a sizable drop in volumes. Moreover, CEOs exercised caution and refrained from adding to headcount. Taken together, they are boosting our profit margin proxy, which can serve as a catalyst to lift relative share price momentum out of its recent funk (second panel, Chart 13). Similarly, our 3 factor S&P rail EPS growth model is heralding a pickup in profits in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 13). Despite all these tailwinds, there are some powerful offsets that tame our optimism on railroards. Intermodal rail shipments are a major freight category and thus a key determinant of rail profitability. As consumer confidence remains in freefall, downbeat retail sales will cast a dark shadow on this essential rail freight category (Chart 14). Finally, the industry’s rising debt profile is still a primary concern. Rail executives neglected capex in recent years and instead raised debt in order to retire equity and enhance shareholder value. We continue to view this “investment” backdrop with skepticism and prior to further augmenting exposure to an overweight stance we would want to see an easing on the debt uptake directed at these shareholder friendly activities (Chart 15). Chart 14The Consumer Is A Sore Spot Chart 15Debt Burden Flashing Red In sum, we are compelled to take profits in our underweight S&P rails portfolio position and lift exposure to neutral on the back of: a.) already reflected grim ISM services data, b.) resilient industry pricing power, c.) firming railroad profit margin backdrop and d.) encouraging signs from our EPS growth model. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P railroads index to a benchmark allocation today booking a profit of 6.4% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RAIL – UNP, NSC, CSX, KSU.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/statements-speeches-william-mcchesney-martin-jr-448/address-new-york-group-investment-bankers-association-america-7800 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril” dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   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).

Chart 1 The SPX made a run for the technically important 200-day moving average and set it sights to fresh recovery highs. Three key drivers underpin stocks and dominate the news flow: First, surfacing of positive news on a coronavirus vaccine fast-track with the FDA approving MRNA’s candidate for a phase II trial. 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. 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. Please see this Monday’s Weekly Report for more details. Chart 2

Highlights Global stimulus efforts are sufficient thus far, but more will need to be done, especially by Europe and emerging markets. Hiccups will not be well-received by financial markets. The net public wealth of countries helps put debt constraints into perspective in a world of zero and negative interest rates. Insufficient fiscal policy is a bigger risk for Europe in the near term than any Germany-mandated withdrawal of ECB quantitative easing. European states remain locked in a geopolitical predicament that prevents them from abandoning each other despite serious differences over fiscal policy, which will persist. We are tactically long defensive plays and safe havens. Stay long JPY-EUR. Feature This week we focus on two questions: Will global stimulus be enough to fill the gap in demand? And will Germany impose a hard limit on European stimulus efforts? Our answers are yes to the first and no to the second. It is impossible for governments to replace private activity indefinitely, but the resumption of private activity is inevitable one way or another. Governments are continuing to provide massive fiscal and monetary support. The near term is cloudy, however, due to the mismatch between uncertain economic reopening and increasing impediments to new stimulus. Weak spots in the global fiscal stimulus efforts arise in Europe and emerging markets excluding China. Europe, at least, is a temporary catch – as Germany has no choice but to help the rest of the EU prop up aggregate demand. But fiscal policy is a greater near-term risk to peripheral European assets than any cessation of monetary support from the ECB. Will Global Stimulus Be Enough? Yes, Eventually Chart 1 shows the latest update of our global fiscal stimulus chart comparing the size of today’s stimulus to the 2008-10 period. Countries that make up 92% of global GDP are providing about 8% of global GDP in fiscal stimulus. Full calculations can be found in the Appendix. Chart 1US Still Leads In Fiscal Stimulus The chief difference between our calculation and that of others is that we include government loans while excluding government loan guarantees. If a government gives a loan to a business or household, funds are transferred to the receiver’s deposits and can be spent to make necessary purchases or pay fixed costs. A loan guarantee, by contrast, is helpful but does not involve a transfer of funds. Our colleague Jonathan LaBerge, has recently written a Special Report analyzing the size of global fiscal stimulus. He provides an alternative calculation in Chart 2, which focuses on “above the line” measures, i.e. only measures affecting government revenues and expenditures. Government loans, guarantees, and other “below the line” measures are left aside in this conservative definition of stimulus. Chart 2Japan Leads In IMF “Above The Line” Account Of Stimulus Chart 3 shows the discrepancies between Jonathan’s version and our own – they are not very large. The major differences are Japan, China, Germany, Italy, and South Africa. Of these only Germany, Japan, and China are significant.1 Chart 3Geopolitical Strategy Estimates Accord Less Stimulus To Japan, More To Germany And China, Than IMF Does In Japan’s case, we include the stimulus measures that Japan passed at the end of 2019 because even though they were not passed in response to the pandemic, they will take affect at the same time as those that were. We do not include private sector complements to government action, which Japan includes in its account, since private responses are hard to predict and we do not include them for other countries. In China’s case, official estimates underrate the easing of credit policy. Credit is a quasi-fiscal function in China since the Communist Party controls the banks. With a large credit expansion the overall stimulus impact will be larger than expected, as long as borrowers still want to borrow. Data thus far this year suggests that they do, if only to cover expenses and debt payments. Our assessment that China’s stimulus will reach about 10% of GDP follows BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy. The UK and especially Italy, Spain, and France are falling short in their stimulus efforts … Is global stimulus “enough” to plug the gap in demand? Chart 4 shows our colleague Jonathan’s narrower definition of stimulus compared with estimates of the drop in demand from social lockdowns and spillover effects. It assumes a fiscal multiplier of 1.1. The result suggests that the US, China, and Australia are clearly doing enough; Germany, Japan, and Canada are arguably doing enough; other countries including Italy, France, and Spain will likely have to do more. Chart 4Which Countries Have Plugged The Gap In Demand So Far? The latest news confirms this assessment. The US Congress is negotiating another phase of stimulus that will provide a second round of direct payments to households, a third infusion of small business loans, and a large bailout of state and local governments. The current total is $2 trillion, and so far this year these totals are only revised upward. This tendency stems from the political setup: Trump needs to stimulate for the election, GOP senators’ fates ultimately hinge on Trump, while the House Democrats cannot withhold stimulus merely to undermine the Republicans. Similarly, there can be little doubt that China and Japan will provide more stimulus to maintain full employment – their different political systems have always demanded it. We are more concerned about Europe. The UK and especially Italy, Spain, and France are falling short in their stimulus efforts, with the last three ranging from 2%-4% of GDP, according to Chart 4 above. They will add more stimulus, but might they still fall short of what is needed? Assuming that the ECB will provide adequate liquidity, and that low bond yields for a long time will enable debts to be serviced, these countries can service their debts for some time. But what then is the constraint? From a long-term point of view, the UK and peripheral European nations have relatively fewer national assets to weigh against their well-known liabilities. They are closer to their constraints in issuing debt, even if those constraints are nearly impossible to establish and years away from being hit. This is apparent from the IMF’s data series on net public wealth, i.e. total public sector assets and liabilities (Chart 5A). These data, from 2016, are a bit stale, but they are still useful because they take account of assets like natural resources, real estate, state-owned companies, and pension plans that retain value over the long run. It does no good to refer to the large debt loads of countries without considering the vast holdings that they command. By the same token, at some point the debt loads look formidable even relative to these huge realms. Chart 5ANet Public Wealth: A Fuller Picture Of The Debt Story These data tend to underrate the sustainability of developed markets, which are highly indebted but have reserve currencies, safe haven status, and large, liquid credit markets. They overrate the sustainability of emerging markets, with large resource wealth and low-debt, but vulnerable currencies and credit markets. This is not only true for emerging markets with the most negative net worth, like Brazil, or with unsustainable fiscal policies, like Turkey and South Africa. China would look a lot worse in net public wealth, if this could be calculated, than it does on the general government ledger (Chart 5B), due to the liabilities of its state-owned enterprises and local governments. It would look more like the US or Japan in net public wealth – yet without a reserve currency. Chart 5BNet Government Debt: Flatters EM, Not DM Nevertheless the European states have a problem that the other developed markets do not have: the Euro Area’s “constitutional” order is still unsettled. Questions are continually arising about whether countries’ liabilities are backstopped by a single currency authority and the entire assets of the Euro Area. These questions will tend to be settled in favor of European integration. But treaty battles in the context of upcoming elections – in the Netherlands, Germany, France, and likely Italy and Spain – will provide persistent volatility. Bottom Line: Fiscal stimulus passed thus far is only “sufficient” in a few economies; it is insufficient in southern Europe and emerging markets. Uncertainty about the pandemic, and the pace of economic reopening and normalization, combined with any hiccups in providing adequate stimulus will create near-term volatility. Will Germany Halt Quantitative Easing? No, Not Ultimately The questions about Europe highlighted above have come to the fore with the reemergence of the “German question,” which in today’s context means Germany’s and northern Europe’s willingness to conduct fiscal policy to help rebalance the Euro Area and monetary policy to ease conditions for heavily indebted, low productivity southern Europe. We have little doubt that Germany will provide more than its current 10.3% of GDP fiscal stimulus given that it has explicitly stated that state lender KfW has no limit on the amount of loans it can provide to small businesses. This accounts for the difference between our fiscal stimulus estimate and the IMF’s, but the fullest count, including “below the line” measures, would amount to nearly 35% of GDP. A sea change in the German attitude toward fiscal policy has occurred, which we have tracked in reports over the years. This shift gives permission for other European states to loosen their belts as well. We also have little doubt that German leaders will ultimately accept the ECB’s need to take desperate measures to backstop the European financial system: The “dirty little secret” of the Euro Area is that debt is already mutualized through the Target 2 banking imbalance, worth 1.5 trillion euros (Chart 6). As our Chief European Investment Strategist Dhaval Joshi has argued, Germany, as the largest shareholder in the ECB, holds a large quantity of Italian bonds, and Italians have deposited the proceeds of these bond purchases in German banks. All of this is denominated in euros. If Italy redenominates into lira, it can make bond payments in lira and the ECB and Germany will suffer capital losses. Germany would then face Italians withdrawing their deposits from German banks that would still be denominated in euros (or the deutschmark). The cause of this predicament is the ECB’s quantitative easing program (Chart 7). Chart 6Europe’s Gordian Knot Thus Chancellor Angela Merkel’s shift in tone to become more supportive of joint debt issuance belies the fact that European debt is already mutualized through the Gordian knot of Target2 imbalances. This is a politically unpalatable reality for Germans, but they generally accept it because it is in Germany’s national interest to maintain the monetary union and broader European integration. Chart 7Quantitative Easing Puts Germans On Hook For Italy However, the market may need reassurances about “the German question” from time to time, as EU institutional evolution is ongoing. Financial markets did not sell off on the German court’s ruling on May 5, which ostensibly gave the Bundesbank three months before withdrawing from the ECB’s quantitative easing program. Since the sovereign debt crisis, investors have come to recognize that there is more undergirding European integration than mere German preference. Namely, geopolitics – which we have outlined many times, originally in a 2011 Special Report. European nations cannot compete globally without banding together, and Germany is not powerful enough to go it alone. Still, there will be more consequences from this week’s ruling. At issue is the budgetary sovereignty of the European member states as well as Article 123 of the Treaty of Europe, which holds that neither the ECB nor the national central banks of member states can directly purchase public debts. The latter is a prohibition on the monetary financing of deficits. It became controversial in the wake of Mario Draghi’s 2012 declaration that the ECB would do “whatever it takes” to preserve the euro and the ECB’s 2015 Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) quantitative easing program, which the European Court of Justice deemed legal on December 11, 2018. The controversy is now implicitly shifting to the new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program. The other principle concerned is that of “proportionality,” which requires that EU entities not take actions beyond what is necessary to achieve treaty objectives. If the ECB acted without regard to the limits of its mandate, the fiscal supremacy of the states, and the broader economic and fiscal consequences of QE, then its actions would violate the principle of proportionality and would require adjustment by EU authorities or non-participation from member state authorities. The German court did not attempt to overrule or invalidate the European court’s decision in favor of QE, or QE as a whole. Rather, it held that this ruling was not “comprehensible,” hence requiring an independent German ruling, and that the larger question of whether QE violates the prohibition against debt monetization is “not ascertainable.” The reason is that the ECB did not explain its actions adequately and the European Court of Justice did not demand an explanation. Presumably once this is done more decisive determinations can be made. Essentially the German court is demanding “documentation” by the ECB Governing Council that it weighed its monetary decisions against larger economic and fiscal consequences. So will the Bundesbank withdraw from the ECB’s QE operations in three months? Highly unlikely! The ECB, whether directly or indirectly, will provide an assessment of the proportionality of its actions to the Bundesbank and the German court will probably conclude, with limitations, that the ECB’s actions were largely within its mandate. If not, however, markets will plunge. Then the Bundestag or the Bundesbank will have to intervene to ensure that Germany does not in fact withdraw support from the ECB. European nations cannot compete globally without banding together, and Germany is not powerful enough to go it alone. How can we be sure? German opinion. Chancellor Merkel and her ruling Christian Democrats have not suffered this year so far from launching a wartime fiscal expansion and backing the ECB and EU institutions in their emergency actions. On the contrary, they have received one of the biggest bounces in popular opinion polls of any western leaders over the course of the global pandemic. While the bounce will deflate once the acute crisis subsides, this polling signals more than the average rally around the flag (Chart 8). Merkel’s approval rating started to rise when her party embraced more expansive fiscal policy in late 2019 in reaction to malaise revealed in the 2017 election. Germany’s handling of today’s crisis, both the pandemic and the expansive fiscal policy, has put the ruling party in the lead for the 2021 elections (Chart 9). Chart 8Germans See Popular Opinion ‘Bounce’ Amid COVID Chart 9Merkel's CDU Revives Amid Global Crisis Chart 10Germans Support Euro, But Lean On ECB Moreover Germans are enthusiastically in support of the euro and the EU relative to their peers – which makes sense because Germany has been the greatest beneficiary of European integration (Chart 10). The ECB, by contrast, does not have strong support – and is losing altitude. But a crisis provoked by the court and centered on the ECB would quickly become a crisis about the euro and European project as a whole. Opinion has broken in this direction despite Merkel’s and Germany’s many compromises over the years. Remember that Merkel’s capitulation to the Mediterranean states on the European Council in June 2011, which paved the way for Draghi’s famous dictum, was initially seen as a failure by her to defend German interests. Merkel and her party have also recovered from the hit they took when she insisted that Germany take in a huge influx of Syrian refugees in 2015. German popular opinion is relevant when discussing the judicial system and rule of law. No court can ignore popular opinion entirely, no matter how independent and austere, because every court ultimately needs public opinion to maintain its credibility. The European Court’s decision is final, as long as Germany remains committed to the EU. Yet German sovereignty still gives German institutions a say. If the German court persists in attempting to block Bundesbank participation in QE, the result will be a bond market riot that pushes up peripheral debt funding costs. This would eventually risk forcing peripheral states out of the Euro Area, which is against German interests. It is very unlikely things will go so far. Rather, the court will back down after receiving due attention and having its legitimate concerns addressed. The imperatives of European integration are as powerful today as they were in 2011. True, other court challenges will open up against the ECB, particularly the PEPP. But bear in mind that it will be even easier to show that ECB actions are proportional – that broader economic consequences have been weighed – in the case of the pandemic relief emergency than with respect to PSPP prior to COVID. Today it is households and small businesses that need protection from an act of God, not banks and bureaucracies that need protection from the consequences of their excesses. As for the size and duration of QE, the court will try to force some limitations to be acknowledged given the risk to fiscal sovereignty. In this sense, the ECB faces a new constraint, albeit one that we doubt will prove relevant in the near term. Ultimately, the consequence of imposing some limits on central bank policy is to restore authority to member state budgets and European fiscal coordination. In the short term, emergency provision can be provided via the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), whose lending conditions can be relaxed, and by the ECB’s Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT), which can buy bonds amid a market riot. But beyond the immediate crisis the clash over fiscal policy will persist because at some point countries will have to climb down from their extraordinary stimulus and the attempt to restore limits will be contentious. Germany has already made a huge shift in a more fiscally accommodative direction. Italy, Spain, and France are currently not providing enough, but they will add more. Future governments might demand more than even today’s more dovish Germany is willing to accept. Down the road, if these states do not provide more stimulus, then their recoveries will be weaker and political malaise will get worse. An anti-establishment outcome is already likely in Italy in the coming year or two, due to the ability of the League to capitalize on post-COVID voter anger. The big question after that is France in 2022. Macron’s approval rating is holding up, we expect him to win, but his bounce amid the pandemic is not remarkable. From our point of view the peripheral states have a license to spend, so spend they will. But then fiscal conflicts will revive later. Bottom Line: The German constitutional court is not going to try to force the Bundesbank to withdraw from QE, but it is attempting to lay a foundation for the imposition of at least some limits on this policy. The risk to European assets in the short run is not on the monetary side but the fiscal side. Over the long run, the “German question” will never be settled. But the imperatives of European integration are as powerful today as they were in 2011. Each new crisis exposes the weakness of the peripheral states, their need for European institutions. It also exposes Germany’s need to accommodate them when they form a united front. Investment Takeaways Financial markets have no clarity on economic reopening in the face of the virus or how governments will respond to resurgent outbreaks or a second wave in the fall. Taking into consideration the initial shock of the lockdowns plus spillover effects, the cumulative impact to annual GDP rises to 6%-8% by the end of this year for major economies. If another lockdown occurs, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region. This bare risk suggests that global equities face a relapse in the near term. Eventually economic reopening will proceed, as the working age population will demand it. But the path between here and there is rocky and any hiccups in providing stimulus will create even more volatility. Globally, we continue to argue that political and geopolitical risks are rising across the board as the pandemic and recession evolve into a struggle among nations to maintain security amid vulnerabilities and distract from their problems at home. Rumors that China is about to declare an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea are unverified but we have long expected this to occur and tensions and at least some saber-rattling would ensue. We also expect the US to surprise the market with punitive tech and trade measures against China in the near term and to upgrade relations with Taiwan. We remain long JPY-EUR on a tactical 0-3 month horizon. We are converting our tactical long S&P consumer staples, which is up 6%, to a relative trade against the broad market. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix Table 1The Global Fiscal Stimulus Response To COVID-19 Footnotes 1 In the case of Italy, we assume that parliament will pass the latest proposed increase in stimulus from 1.4% to 3.1% of GDP. In the case of South Africa, we expect the IMF to include these measures soon. Germany is discussed below.

Highlights Our baseline view foresees a U-shaped recovery, as economies slowly relax lockdown measures. There are significant risks to this forecast, however. On the upside, a vaccine or effective treatment could hasten the reopening of economies and recovery in spending. On the downside, containment measures could end up being eased too quickly, leading to a surge in new cases. A persistent spell of high unemployment could also permanently damage economies, especially if fiscal and monetary stimulus is withdrawn too quickly. In addition, geopolitical risks loom large, with the US election likely to be fought on who sounds tougher on China. Earnings estimates have yet to fall as much as we think they will, making global equities vulnerable to a near-term correction. Nevertheless, the spread between earnings yields and bond yields is wide enough to justify a modest overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon. Is It Safe To Come Down? We published a report two weeks ago entitled Still Stuck In The Tree where we likened the current situation to one where an angry bear has chased a hiker up a tree.1 Having reached a high enough branch to escape immediate danger, the hiker breathes a sigh of relief. As time goes by, however, the hiker starts to get nervous. Rather than disappearing back into the forest, the bear remains at the base of the tree licking its chops. Meanwhile, the hiker is cold, hungry, and late for work. Like the hiker, the investment community breathed a collective sigh of relief when the number of cases in Italy and Spain, the first two major European economies to be hit by the coronavirus, began to trend lower. In New York City, which quickly emerged as the epicentre of the crisis in the United States, more COVID patients have been discharged from hospitals than admitted for the past three weeks (Chart 1). Chart 1Discharges From New York Hospitals Have Exceeded Admissions For The Past Three Weeks Deepest Recession Since The 1930s Yet, this progress has come at a very heavy economic cost. The IMF expects the global economy to shrink by 3% this year (Chart 2). In 2009, global GDP barely contracted. Chart 2Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year The sudden stop in economic activity has led to a surge in unemployment. According to the Bloomberg consensus estimate, the US unemployment rate rose to 16% in April. The true unemployment rate is probably higher since to be considered unemployed one has to be looking for work, which is difficult if not impossible in the presence of widespread lockdowns. Regardless, even the official unemployment rate is the worst since the Great Depression (Chart 3). Chart 3Unemployment Rate Seen Jumping To Levels Not Reached Since The Great Depression   Unshackling The Economy A key difference from the 1930s is that today’s recession has been self-induced. Policymakers want workers to stay home as much as possible. The hope is that once businesses reopen, most of these workers will return to their jobs. How long will that take? Our baseline scenario envisions a slow but steady reopening of the global economy starting later this month, which should engender a U-shaped economic recovery. Since mid-March, much of the world has been trying to compensate for lost time by taking measures that would not have been necessary if policymakers had acted sooner. As Box 1 explains, some loosening of lockdown measures could be achieved without triggering a second wave of cases once the infection rate has been brought down to a sufficiently low level. To the extent that economic activity tends to move in tandem with the number of interactions that people have, a relaxation of social distancing measures should produce a modest rebound in growth. New technologies and a better understanding of how the virus is transmitted should also allow some of the more economically burdensome measures to be lifted. As we have discussed before, mass testing can go a long way towards reducing the spread of the disease (Chart 4).2 Right now, high-quality tests are in short supply, but that should change over the coming months.  Chart 4Mass Testing Will Help Increased mask production should also help. Early in the pandemic, officials in western nations promulgated the view that masks do not work. At best, this was a noble lie designed to ensure that anxious consumers did not deprive frontline workers of necessary safety equipment. At worst, it needlessly led many people astray. As East Asia’s experience shows, mask wearing saves lives. A recent paper estimated that the virus could be vanquished if 80% of people wore masks that were at least 60% effective, a very low bar that even cloth masks would pass (Chart 5).3  Chart 5Masks On! Recent research has also cast doubt on the merits of closing schools. The China/WHO joint commission could not find a single instance during contact tracing where a child transmitted the virus to an adult. A study by the UK Royal College of Paediatrics provides further support to the claim that children are unlikely to be important vectors of transmission. The evidence includes a case study of a nine year-old boy who contracted the virus in the French Alps but fortunately failed to transmit it to any of the more than 170 people he had contact with in three separate schools.4  Along the same lines, there is evidence that the odds of adults catching the virus indoors is at least one order of magnitude higher than outdoors.5 This calls into question the strategy of states such as California of clearing out prisons of dangerous felons in order to make room for beachgoers.6 Upside Risks To The U: Medical Breakthroughs While a U-shaped economic recovery remains our base case, we see both significant upside and downside risks to this outcome. The best hope for an upside surprise is that a vaccine or effective treatment becomes available soon. There are already eight human vaccine trials underway, with another 100 in the planning stages. In the race to develop a vaccine, Oxford is arguably in the lead. Scientists at the university’s Jenner Institute have developed a genetically modified virus that is harmless to people, but which still prompts the immune system to produce antibodies that may be able to fight off COVID. The vaccine has already worked well on rhesus monkeys. If it proves effective on humans, researchers hope to have several million doses available by September. On the treatment side, Gilead’s remdesivir gained FDA approval for emergency use after early results showed that it helps hasten the recovery of coronavirus patients. Hydroxychloroquine, which President Trump has touted on numerous occasions, is the subject of dozens of clinical trials internationally. While evidence that hydroxychloroquine can treat the virus post-infection is thin, there is some data to suggest that it can work well as a prophylactic.7 Research is also being conducted on nearly 200 other treatments, including an improbable contender: famotidine, the compound found in the heartburn remedy Pepcid.8  Downside Risk: Too Open, Too Soon Chart 6The Lesson From The Spanish Flu: The Second Wave Could Be Worse Than The First As noted above, once the number of new cases drops to sufficiently low levels, some relaxation of containment measures can be achieved without reigniting the pandemic. That said, there is a clear danger that measures will end up being relaxed too aggressively and too soon. This is precisely what happened during the Spanish Flu (Chart 6). It has become customary to talk about the risk of a second wave of infections; however, the reality is that we have not even concluded the first wave. While the number of cases in New York has been falling, it has been rising in many other US states. As a result, the total number of new coronavirus cases nationwide has remained steady for the past five weeks (Chart 7). It is the same story globally: Falling caseloads in western Europe and East Asia have been offset by rising cases in countries such as Russia, India, and Brazil (Chart 8). Chart 7The Spread Of COVID-19 Has Not Been Contained Everywhere (I) Chart 8The Spread Of Covid-19 Has Not Been Contained Everywhere (II)   Chart 9Widespread Social Distancing Has Dampened The Spread Of All Flus And Colds At the heart of the problem is that COVID-19 remains a highly contagious disease. Most studies assign a Reproduction Number, R, of 3-to-4 to the virus. As a point of comparison, the Spanish flu is estimated to have had an R of 1.8. An R of 3.5 would require about 70% of the population to acquire herd immunity to keep the virus at bay.9 As discussed in Box 2, the “true” level of herd immunity may be substantially greater than that. At this point, if you come down with a cough and fever, you should assume you have COVID. As Chart 9 shows, social distancing measures have brought the number of viral respiratory illnesses down to almost zero in the United States. Up to 30% of common cold cases stem from the coronavirus family. Just like it would be foolhardy to assume that the common cold has been banished from the face of the earth, it would be unwise to assume that COVID will not return if containment measures are quickly lifted.   Downside Risk: Permanent Economic Damage Chart 10No Spike In Bankruptcies For Now There are a lot of asymmetries in economics: It is easier to lose a job than to find one; starting a new business is also more difficult than going bankrupt.  The good news so far is that bankruptcies have been limited and most unemployed workers have not been permanently laid off (Chart 10 and Chart 11). Thus, for the most part, the links that bind firms to workers have not been severed.   Chart 11Temporary Layoffs Account For Most Of The Recent Increase In Unemployment   Unfortunately, there is a risk that the economy will suffer permanent damage if unemployment remains high and economic activity stays depressed. For some sectors, such as airlines, long-term damage is nearly assured. It took a decade for real household spending on airlines to return to pre 9/11 levels (Chart 12). It could take even longer for the physiological scars of the pandemic to fade. While businesses outside the travel and hospitality sectors will see a quicker rebound, they could still experience subdued demand for as long as social distancing measures persist. Chart 129/11 Was A Big Shock For US Air Travel There is not much that fiscal policy can do to reverse the immediate hit to GDP from the pandemic. If people cannot work, they cannot produce. What fiscal stimulus can do is push enough money into the hands of households and firms to enable them to meet their financial obligations, while hopefully creating some pent-up demand that can be unleashed when businesses reopen. For now and for the foreseeable future, there is no need to tighten fiscal policy. The private sector in the major economies is generating plenty of savings with which governments can finance budget deficits. Indeed, standard economic theory suggests that if governments tried to “save more” by reducing budget deficits, total national savings would actually decline.10   Nevertheless, just as fiscal policy was prematurely tightened in many countries following the Great Recession, there is a risk that austerity measures will be reintroduced too quickly again. Likewise, calls to tighten monetary policy could grow louder. Just this week, Germany’s constitutional court ruled that the EU Court of Justice had overstepped its powers by failing to require the ECB to conduct an assessment of the “proportionality” of its controversial asset purchase policy. The German high court ordered the Bundesbank to suspend QE in three months unless the ECB Governing Council provides “documentation” showing it meets the criteria of proportionality. Among other things, the ruling could undermine the ECB’s newly launched €750 billion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP). Downside Risk: Geopolitical Tensions Had the virus originated anywhere else but China, President Trump could have made a political case for further deescalating the Sino-US trade war in an effort to shore up the US economy and stock market. Not only did that not happen, but the likelihood of a new clash between China and the US has gone up dramatically. Antipathy towards China is rising (Chart 13). As our geopolitical team has stressed, the US election is likely to be fought on who can sound tougher on China. With the economy on the ropes, Trump will try to paint Joe Biden as too passive and conflicted to stand up to China. Indeed, running as a “war president” may be Trump’s only chance of getting re-elected. Chart 13US Nationalism Is On The Rise Amid Broad-Based Anti-China Sentiment At the domestic political level, the pandemic has exacerbated already glaringly wide inequalities. While well-paid white-collar workers have been able to work from the comfort of their own homes, poorer blue-collar workers have either been furloughed or asked to continue working in a dangerous environment (in nursing homes or meat-packing plants, for example). It is not clear what the blowback from all this will be, but it is unlikely to be benign. Investment Implications Global equities and credit spreads have tracked the frequency of Google search queries for “coronavirus” remarkably well (Chart 14). As coronavirus queries rose, stocks plunged; as the number of queries subsided, stocks rallied. If there is a second wave of infections, anxiety about the virus is likely to grow again, leading to another sell-off in risk assets. Chart 14Joined At The Hip Chart 15Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term   Earnings estimates have come down, but are still above where we think they ought to be. This makes global equities vulnerable to a correction (Chart 15). Meanwhile, retail investors have been active buyers, eagerly gobblingup stocks such as American Airlines and Norwegian Cruise Lines that have fallen on hard times recently (Chart 16). They have also been active buyers of the USO oil ETF, which is down 80% year-to-date. When retail investors are trying to catch a falling knife, that is usually an indication that stocks have yet to reach a bottom. As such, we recommend that investors maintain a somewhat cautious stance on the near-term direction of stocks. Chart 16Retail Investors Keen To Buy The Dip   Chart 17Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon   Chart 18USD Is A Countercyclical Currency Looking further out, the spread between earnings yields and bond yields is wide enough to justify a modest overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon (Chart 17). If global growth does end up rebounding, cyclicals should outperform defensives. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar will probably weaken (Chart 18). A weaker greenback, in turn, will boost commodity prices (Chart 19). Historically, stronger global growth and a softer dollar have translated into outperformance of non-US stocks relative to their US peers (Chart 20). Thus, investors should prepare to add international equity exposure to their portfolios later this year.   Chart 19Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Weakens Chart 20Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening   Box 1The Dynamics Of R Box 2Why Herd Immunity Is Not Enough Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Still Stuck In The Tree,” dated April 16, 2020. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Testing Times,” dated April 9, 2020. 3 Philip Anfinrud, Valentyn Stadnytskyi, et al., “Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering,” nejm.org (April 15, 2020); Jeremy Howard, Austin Huang, Li Zhiyuan, Zeynep Tufekci, Vladmir Zdimal, Helene-mari van der Westhuizen, et al., “Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review,” Preprints.org, (April 12, 2020); and Liang Tian, Xuefei Li, Fei Qi, Qian-Yuan Tang, Viola Tang, Jiang Liu, Zhiyuan Li, Xingye Cheng, Xuanxuan Li, Yingchen Shi, Haiguang Liu, and Lei-Han Tang, “Calibrated Intervention and Containment of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” arxiv.org (April 2, 2020). 4 “COVID-19 – Research Evidence Summaries,” Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; and Alison Boast, Alasdair Munro, and Henry Goldstein, “An evidence summary of Paediatric COVID-19 literature,” Don’t Forget The Bubbles (2020). 5 Hiroshi Nishiura, Hitoshi Oshitani, Tetsuro Kobayashi, Tomoya Saito, Tomimasa Sunagawa, Tamano Matsui, Takaji Wakita, MHLW COVID-19 Response Team, and Motoi Suzuki, “Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” medRxiv (April 16, 2020). 6 “Coronavirus: Arrests as California beachgoers defy lockdown,” Skynews (April 26, 2020); and “High-risk sex offender rearrested days after controversial release from OC Jail,” abc7.com (May 1, 2020). 7 Sun Hee Lee, Hyunjin Son, and Kyong Ran Peck, “Can post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 be considered as an outbreak response strategy in long-term care hospitals?” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (April 25, 2020). 8 Brendan Borrell, “New York clinical trial quietly tests heartburn remedy against coronavirus,” Science (April 26, 2020). 9 In the simplest models, the herd immunity threshold is reached when P = 1-1/Ro, where P is the proportion of the population which has acquired immunity and Ro is the basic reproductive number. Assuming an Ro of 3.5, heard immunity will be achieved once more than 71.4% of the population has been infected (1-1/3.5). For further discussion on this, please refer to Global Investment Strategy, “Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V,” dated March 27, 2020. 10 It is easiest to understand this point by considering a closed economy where savings, by definition, equals investment. Savings is the sum of private and public savings. Suppose the economy is depressed and the government increases public savings by either raising taxes or cutting spending. Since this action will further depress the economy, private investment will fall even more. But, since investment must equal total savings, private savings must decline more than proportionately with any increase in public savings. This happens because tighter fiscal policy leads to lower GDP. It is difficult to save if one does not have a job. To the extent that lower GDP reduces employment, it also tends to reduce private-sector savings. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Base metals are rebounding faster than oil in 2Q20, reflecting China’s first-in-first-out recovery from the global GDP hit caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart of the Week). By 3Q20, the rebound in oil markets could be stronger than expected and surpass the base metals’ recovery, if the IMF’s latest EM GDP growth projections prove out. We examine a higher-growth scenario for non-OECD oil consumption – our proxy for EM demand – using the Fund’s projections. In it, EM oil consumption rises to 54.9mm b/d by 4Q20 and 56.4mm b/d by 4Q21. This would exceed our current estimates by 6.6% this year and 2.1% in 2021, if realized. Stronger EM consumption, coupled with global crude-oil production cuts would cause crude and product inventories to draw sooner and faster than expected, if these trends continue. Global policy uncertainty – economic and political – remains the critical risk to our metals and oil price outlooks, as it could retard a revival of growth and trade. The US and China appear to be on a collision course once again. Serious risks to global public health remain, particularly in light of a recently disclosed mutation to COVID-19. Feature Base metals are rebounding faster than oil in 2Q20, reflecting China’s first-in-first-out recovery from the global GDP hit caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Prices for base metals likely will continue rebounding from the global hit to GDP caused by COVID-19 and its associated lockdowns, recovering more of the ground lost to the pandemic in 2Q20 than crude oil prices. This is largely a reflection of China’s first-in-first-out recovery from the global pandemic and the aggregate demand destruction following in its wake. This is the signal coming from our updated market-driven indicators shown in the Chart of the Week.1 China accounts for ~ half of the demand for refined base metals worldwide, and a comparable share of the supply side for refined metals and steel (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekBase Metals Rebounding Faster Than Crude Oil We use principal components analysis to extract common factors driving industrial commodity prices in real time from trading markets, which allows us to get a preliminary estimate of the recovery in base metals and crude oil demand. The two indicators shown in the Chart of the Week use daily stock and commodity prices, and other daily economic data. These indicators are called the Metals Demand Component and the Oil Demand Component. The former is largely dependent on the recovery in China/EM industrial activity, and also affects all cyclical commodities, including oil. Chart 2China Dominates Base Metals Supply And Demand Chart 3Policy Stimulus Will Restore Profitability In China The base metals’ rebound likely will continue throughout 2H20 as China’s economic activity gradually normalizes, fiscal and monetary stimulus kick in, and firms’ profitability recovers (Chart 3). “China’s industrial sector should get a boost from an acceleration in infrastructure investment and producer prices should turn moderately positive later in Q3,” based on the analysis of our colleagues in BCA’s China Investment Strategy.2 A weaker USD will start showing up in stronger indications of global growth – particularly in the EM markets – which will reverse the downtrend in our data-driven indicators of economic activity (Chart 4). However, given the lags in the release of these data, this will take time. Currently, our Metals Demand Component suggests the trend in base metals demand is upward and established, while our Oil Demand Component is still quite volatile and not yet decisively upward. Nonetheless, our oil indicator does highlight what appears to be a bottom in oil demand. Chart 4A Weaker USD Will Reverse Lagging Indicators Of Activity EM Demand Surge Will Revive Oil Prices The EM oil-demand growth forecast derived from the IMF’s GDP projections indicate growth could rise to as much as 54.9mm b/d by 4Q20 and 56.4mm b/d by 4Q21. This would exceed our current estimates by 6.6% this year and 2.1% in 2021, if realized. Over the short term, oil prices could diverge from demand until storage builds are contained and the market moves into a deficit. The logistics of moving and storing oil remains the primary driver of its price over the very short term, especially for landlocked crudes. The drain in storage could occur earlier than we expected in our forecast last month, if the IMF’s global growth trajectory play out in line with its latest projections.3 Using the Fund’s projections for EM GDP, we examine a scenario in which non-OECD oil demand grows significantly more than we estimated last month. Indeed, the EM oil-demand growth forecast derived from the IMF’s GDP projections indicate growth could rise to as much as 54.9mm b/d by 4Q20 and 56.4mm b/d by 4Q21. This would exceed our current estimates by 6.6% this year and 2.1% in 2021 (Chart 5), if realized. EM growth is the critical variable for global oil-demand growth, accounting for ~ 80% of global consumption growth in the past five years. As we’ve noted for some time, the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus being deployed globally will fuel the recovery of commodity demand (Chart 6). The oil-demand scenario driven by the IMF’s latest GDP projections, and the EIA’s April forecast share a common view of a sharp recovery in the level of non-OECD demand, with the former seeing demand destruction reversed by September, and the latter expecting EM consumption to return to pre-COVID-19 levels toward the end of this year, slightly ahead of us.4 Chart 5EM Oil Demand Could Surge On The Back Of Massive Global Stimulus Chart 6Global Fiscal and Monetary Stimulus Will Surge In 2020 And 2021 A surge in EM oil-demand growth – should it play out as expected – will occur against the backdrop of sharply lower global production levels this year. OPEC 2.0 pledged to cut ~ 8mm b/d starting this month vs. its 1Q20 levels, with its putative leaders – KSA and Russia – accounting for ~ 1.5mm b/d and 2mm b/d, respectively, of the reductions. (Based on OPEC 2.0’s October 1, 2018, reference level – except for KSA and Russia, both of which are cutting from a nominal 11mm b/d level – the cuts amount to almost 10mm b/d for May-June, and 7.7mm b/d for 2H20).5 In addition, the US likely will lose close to 2.5mm b/d from involuntary cuts between now and the end of 2021 due to the global oil price collapse (Chart 7).6 Chart 7US Shale-Oil Output Could Fall ~ 2.5mm b/d OPEC 2.0 Might Have To Lift Production The demand surge implied by the IMF’s expected EM GDP recovery this year and next almost surely would be met by higher output in OPEC 2.0 production. The demand surge implied by the IMF’s expected EM GDP recovery this year and next almost surely would be met by higher output in OPEC 2.0 production, to keep prices from charging ahead too sharply in 2H20 and in 2021. The increase in the coalition’s spare capacity – consisting of the production taken off the market through production cuts and the 2.5mm b/d or so that it had prior to the COVID-19-induced demand destruction – will allow OPEC 2.0 to quickly meet any supply shortfalls as demand recovers before the US shale-oil producers can ramp production. All the same, the market could experience episodic volatility on the upside, if our EM demand calculations based on IMF GDP projections and those of the EIA are correct. It is highly likely, in our view, OPEC 2.0 will be the direct beneficiary of the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus of the DM and EM economies– oil being a derived demand that depends on the income available to firms and households. This means the odds of seeing $80/bbl Brent is more likely than not next year: Importantly, EM and DM consumers will be better equipped to absorb higher oil prices with the massive stimulus sloshing around the global economy next year. For now, we are maintaining our expectation of $65/bbl average prices for Brent next year, but we will continue to watch EM GDP growth in upcoming World Bank and IMF research (Chart 8). Chart 8Upside Risks in Oil Prices As GDP Growth Prospects Improve Oil Price Risks Abound An upside surprise in EM oil-demand growth – consistent with the IMF’s revised GDP projections – could cause us to increase our demand expectation when we update balances and forecasts this month. Two-way price risk abounds in the oil markets. Even if options volatility on the CBOE is considerably lower than its recent record-setting peak, it still is close to 100% on an annualized basis (Chart 9). On the upside, as we’ve discussed above, if EM GDP growth is in the neighborhood projected by the IMF, demand could surge, based on our calculations. We have no doubt OPEC 2.0 can cover any shortfall, but it can’t do it immediately, so we would expect episodic volatility this year and next. Chart 9Oil Price Risk Abounds On the downside, the COVID-19 pandemic could enter a second wave just as governments around the world are removing lockdown orders and phasing in a return to normal commerce. Of particular note in this regard is the emergence of a mutation of the original strain of the COVID-19 virus that is more contagious, and now constitutes the dominant strain in the world. The mutated form of the virus appeared in Europe and quickly spread to the US east coast, and then the rest of the planet.7 Also, the risk that “animal spirits” will not re-emerge in businesses and consumers globally remains elevated. Despite the large increase in global money supply, confidence needs to be restored for the money multiplier to move up. In addition to that, signs of another round in the Sino-US trade war in the offing could restrain growth and trade. Bottom Line: Our base case remains a resumption in global growth in 2H20, with base metals recovering most of their lost ground in 2Q20 and oil following in 3Q20. An upside surprise in EM oil-demand growth – consistent with the IMF’s revised GDP projections – could cause us to increase our demand expectation when we update balances and forecasts this month. However, serious risks to global public health remain, and trade tensions between the US and China once again are percolating.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Refinery runs in the US collapsed by 25% this year in the wake of the COVID-19-induced economic shutdown. Still, WTI prices rose 30% this week – from a very low level – as oil supply in the US – and globally – is adjusting rapidly to lower demand (Chart 10). Wells shut-ins are accelerating throughout North America. In the Bakken Basin, shut-ins reportedly reached 400k b/d this week.8 Moreover, the effect of the 50% YTD decline in US rig count will be visible over the coming weeks. The rig count is now well below the level necessary to keep production flat. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices remained above $1,700/oz as of Tuesday’s close, supported by elevated economic uncertainty. Virus-related uncertainty will gradually wane as economies reopen. This could pull gold down temporarily as safe-asset demand is reduced. Nonetheless, our Geopolitical team believes risk and uncertainty will partly shift to the geopolitical arena in the run-up of the US election.9 Additionally, the massive stimulus by the US Fed and Treasury will become an important driver of the yellow metal’s price going forward. Gold will trend higher as US rates remain stuck at zero, as it did in 2008 (Chart 11). Ags/Softs:  Underweight Following lockdown easing measures in different parts of the world, hopes of a rebound in ethanol demand helped push CBOT Corn futures 0.5% higher on Tuesday. Additionally, continuing drought conditions in Brazil will limit the country’s yields and support corn prices in the near term. Soybeans climbed 3¢/bu on Tuesday, backed by China’s booking of 378k tons of the oilseed as it seeks to fulfill the US trade deal obligations. Gains throughout corn and soybeans were mitigated by a strong planting progress as reported by the USDA. Wheat ended slightly higher after field assessments conducted by Oklahoma State University Extension projected the state harvest down by 13.5 Mn bushels year-on-year. Chart 10Crude Recouping Some Ground Chart 11Fed Rates Stuck At Zero Will Push Gold Higher   Footnotes 1     Given the importance of the daily prices in these indicators, we are explicitly assuming trading markets are continually processing fundamental information on supply, demand, inventories, and financial and economic conditions in industrial commodity markets and reflecting them in prices. This is especially important when an exogenous event like the COVID-19 pandemic hits global markets. Market participants have to work out the implications of the shock and its resolution in real time, which can make for exceptionally volatile prices. Lags in the economic data provided by the likes of the World Bank, the IMF, EIA, IEA and OPEC make the time series we typically rely on to model fundamentals and their expected evolution less effective in estimating the current state of commodity markets. Their forecasts, however, remain extremely useful, as they are developed by analysts with particular expertise in global macroeconomic forecasting, in the case of the World Bank and IMF, and oil markets, in the case of the EIA, IEA and OPEC. 2     Please see A Slow And Rocky Path To Recovery published by BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy April 29, 2020. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3    Please see US Storage Tightens, Pushing WTI Lower for our most recent supply-demand balances and oil price forecasts, which were published April 16, 2020. We use the global growth forecasts of the IMF and the World Bank as inputs to our fundamental modeling to estimate oil demand. In particular, we’ve found a parsimonious relationships between OECD, non-OECD and world oil demand and DM and EM GDP. Chapter 1 of the Fund’s advance forecast was published last month in its World Economic Outlook under the title “The Great Lockdown.” 4    Assuming the Fund’s projections of EM GDP are approximately correct, the impact on oil demand is quite large as can be seen in the comparisons shown in Chart 5. However, the IMF’s estimate for oil prices is sharply below our estimate, which was made last month assuming lower levels of EM oil demand. We expect Brent crude oil prices to average $39/bbl this year and $65/bbl next year, vs. the Fund’s estimate of $35.61/bbl in 2020 and $37.87/bbl in 2021. The EIA’s estimate of non-OECD demand is comparable to our, as seen in Chart 6, but its price forecasts for this year and next – $33/bbl and $46/bbl – also are below ours. 5    Please see US Storage Tightens, Pushing WTI Lower, where we outline OPEC 2.0’s cuts. 6    Please see our April 30 report entitled Stand By For Heavy Rolls: June WTI Could Go Below $0.00/bbl for additional discussion. 7     Please see The coronavirus has mutated and appears to be more contagious now, new study finds published by cnbc.com May 5, 2020. 8    Please see 'Like watching a train wreck': The coronavirus effect on North Dakota shale oilfields published by reuters.com May 4, 2020. 9    Please see #WWIII published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy May 1, 2020. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2020 Summary of Closed Trades