Financial Markets

Special Report

Highlights Investors’ hunt for yield over the past few years has increasingly led them to view emerging markets debt (EMD) as an attractive component of portfolios. EMD should not be viewed as one homogeneous asset class. Investors should distinguish between its key segments: hard-currency sovereign debt, hard-currency corporate debt, and local-currency sovereign debt. EMD allows investors to own bonds with higher yields than DM sovereign or corporate bonds. But it comes with specific risks that investors need to understand. EMD, being a highly cyclical asset class, should perform well in an environment of accelerating global growth – which we expect to see during 2020. Within this asset class, we favor EM hard-currency sovereign bonds over both EM hard-currency corporate debt and local-currency sovereign bonds. However, the coronavirus outbreak makes us reluctant to pull the trigger on this recommendation now. Rather, we are placing EM hard-currency sovereign debt on upgrade watch. Feature Emerging markets debt (EMD) as an asset class has grown over the past decades to over US$24 trillion in bonds outstanding – becoming an integral part of the global investment universe, and presenting an interesting investment opportunity for investors. The EMD universe, which was previously dominated by sovereign issues in hard currencies, has become more diverse, and consequently, difficult for investors to ignore. In this Special Report, we identify the segments that make up EMD and the various exposures that investors face when allocating to it. We analyze their risk-return characteristics and the drivers contributing to their returns, and compare EMD to other asset classes. We conclude by identifying any diversification benefits that investors can reap as the hunt for yield continues. Introduction Estimates value total debt in emerging markets at over $24 trillion as of Q2 2019. This includes both sovereign and corporate debt, in both local and hard currencies (Chart 1).1  The bulk of EMD, however, is in local currencies – almost 90%. Chart 1Estimates Of Total EMD In this Special Report, we focus on the following three segments of emerging markets debt (EMD): Sovereign debt issued in hard currency – the majority of which is USD denominated – estimated at $2 trillion. I. We distinguish between “pure”            sovereigns and quasi-sovereign bonds. Corporate debt2  issued in hard currency – mainly in USD – estimated to be $1.5 trillion. Sovereign debt issued in local currency – estimated at $10.3 trillion. We do not cover local-currency corporate debt, as more than half of it – estimated to be $8.1 trillion – is issued by Chinese firms and is hard to access for most investors. Each of these segments offers an array of opportunities, is driven by different dynamics, and bears risks that investors must recognize before allocating to it. We recommend clients view the segments of EMD as different asset classes, rather than an aggregate. Hard-Currency Debt Hard-currency EMD refers to debt issued by governments and firms in emerging markets that is denominated in a currency other than their local currency. Estimates suggest 90%-95% of total hard-currency debt is USD denominated, with the remaining in euros and yen. The main feature of hard-currency EMD is that it provides investors with protection against currency depreciation risk. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that currency movements can affect spreads, default risk, as well as liquidity. If a country’s currency depreciates, its ability to service its foreign debt deteriorates. This is crucial, as exemplified by currency crises over the past few years in countries such as Argentina, Turkey, Egypt, and Venezuela. Hard-Currency Sovereign Debt Since 2004, EM hard-currency sovereign bond investors have enjoyed an annualized total return of 7.4%, much higher than the 3.2% from the global Treasury index. Even on a risk-adjusted return basis, the incremental performance compensates for the additional 1.7% of annualized volatility. Investing in EM hard-currency sovereigns allows investors to find higher-yielding debt than government bonds in developed economies. Since 2004, the average yield on EM hard-currency sovereign debt was 6.1%, 3.8 percentage points higher than the 2.3% on their DM counterparts. Investors received positive returns even in real terms, as inflation in DM and the US have averaged 2.2% and 2.1% respectively, since 2004 (Chart 2). This has been extremely useful, particularly in the past few years, when bond yields in many developed economies reached zero or turned negative, and investors increasingly hunted for yield. The risk profile of the aggregate EM sovereign debt index is balanced between the safer Middle Eastern economies such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar, and the riskier Latin American economies such as Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. Those two buckets each comprise approximately 30% of the index, with the remainder of the index split between Asia, Emerging Europe, and Africa at 17%, 11%, and 10%, respectively (Chart 3). Other portfolios are benchmarked to J.P. Morgan’s indexes where Gulf countries have very little weight. Chart 2EM USD-Sovereigns Provide Value To DM Investors Chart 3Risk Profile Of EM USD-Sovereigns We believe it is reasonable to compare hard-currency EM sovereign debt to US investment-grade bonds due to their shared characteristics. Both have comparable duration (approximately eight years) and similar credit qualities, despite EM sovereign debt being a little riskier on average than the US corporate market (Chart 4). Nevertheless, since 2004, EM sovereign hard-currency debt has outperformed US investment-grade bonds by 40% – although its outperformance has lost steam over the past few years (Chart 5). Chart 4EM USD-Sovereigns Are Slightly Riskier Than US Investment-Grade Bonds Chart 5EM USD-Sovereigns Have Outperformed US IG Bonds... This does not mean that EM debt is immune to problems.3 The cumulative average default rate of EM foreign-currency sovereign debt – while lower than US corporates – remains high and is more pronounced as one goes down the credit-rating curve (Table 1). Idiosyncratic country risks can skew the data. If one excludes Argentina – currently weighted at only 3.5% – from the index, almost 100 basis points of spread get shaved off (Chart 6). Table 1…However, Beware Of The Default Rates Chart 6Excluding Argentina, Spreads Are Much Lower Given that most of our clients invest through passive vehicles, throughout this report, we focus on the EM aggregate indexes rather than on specific countries. However, it is important to identify over/undervalued countries, given the wide-ranging risk-profile spectrum of emerging economies. By drawing a US corporate credit curve, based on credit ratings and breakeven spreads, one can spot over- or undervalued countries relative to US investment-grade bonds. Currently, the sovereign bonds of Poland, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia appear to be more attractively valued than those of Russia, Hungary, and Brazil. The charts also show the transition of these countries across time (Chart 7, A,B,C,D). Chart 7Country Selection Is Important… Chart 8...With The UAE And Saudi As Good Examples For example, South African sovereign bonds – given their current credit rating and spreads – have moved from being overvalued relative to US corporates to undervalued over the past five years. This implies a buying opportunity, or simply that they are getting cheaper ahead of a potential downgrade. For investors with less restricted mandates, country selection can be very valuable. For example, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, two highly rated economies at Aa2 and A1 respectively, trade at 23 and 30 basis points over similarly rated US corporate bonds (Chart 8). We find that EM hard-currency sovereign spreads are mainly driven by global growth cycles, something BCA Research’s Emerging Market strategists have often highlighted.4  We rely on several key indicators to gauge where we are in the cycle. These include Germany’s IFO manufacturing business expectations, global and emerging market PMIs, as well as OECD’s Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) (Chart 9). Upward moves in these indicators have historically led to a tightening in EM sovereign spreads. Chart 9Spreads Will Tighten Once Global Growth Picks Up Quasi-Sovereign Bonds Chart 10Quasi-Sovereigns Are Focused In The Energy Sector Investors need to differentiate between EM sovereign bonds and quasi-sovereign bonds. While formal definitions vary among market participants and academics, the most common definition of “quasi-sovereign” is bonds issued by an entity where the government either fully owns the institution, controls more than 50% of its equity, or has a majority of its voting rights.5 Examples of such companies include Brazil’s Petrobras, Mexico’s Pemex, and Venezuela’s PDVSA. One reason why we highlight quasi-sovereigns is the rapid growth in the amount of such debt outstanding.6 As of January 2020, the quasi-sovereign bond market has grown by over US$630 billion throughout the past decade to US$714 billion and it now makes up over 42% of the combined EM Sovereign amd Quasi-Sovereign Bloomberg Barclays index. The oil & gas sector represents over a third of quasi-sovereign entities (Chart 10). Chart 11Quasi-Sovereigns...A Defensive Play On Corporate Bonds Some investors assume that a quasi-sovereign entity would have the full backing of its government. While that is true in most cases, the majority of quasi-sovereign bonds only have an “implicit” backing from the issuer’s government, meaning that the government holds no legal liability in case of default. Dubai World, a state-owned conglomerate, was a perfect example of this during the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis. The government stood on the sidelines as the firm went through financial distress, forcing billions of dollars of debt to be restructured.7 Given this additional level of uncertainty and corporate risk, EM quasi-sovereign bonds trade at higher spreads than their sovereign counterparts (Chart 11). Nonetheless, bonds with even the simplest implicit backing from the government are considered a more defensive play than “pure” corporate bonds, which trade at even higher spreads. Hard-Currency Corporate Debt The increase in quasi-sovereign issuance has been a big factor in the growth of the hard-currency corporate-debt universe – a segment that became of interest to investors in the early 2000s. The outstanding amount of hard-currency corporate debt has surpassed hard-currency sovereign debt, according to the Bank Of International Settlements (BIS) (Chart 1). The EM corporate debt index8 has similar sector exposure to the MSCI EM equity index. Almost 69% of the bond index is concentrated in the Industrials category,9 with the Financial/Banking and Utilities sectors making up the remaining 26% and 5%, respectively (Chart 12). The Technology sector is an exception – comprising only 5% of the corporate bond index compared to over 16% in the equity index. The country exposure, however, is less skewed to Asian economies compared to equities (Chart 13). Chart 12EM Corporates Provide Similar Sector Exposure To Equities… Chart 13…Yet With Different Country Exposure Chart 14EM Corporates: A Defensive Play On Equities...   The overlap in sector coverage can be advantageous to investors who want quasi-exposure to EM equities but with much lower volatility. The same can be said for DM corporate bonds, whose return is highly correlated to equities but with about one-third the beta.10 The correlation between EM corporate bonds and EM equities is currently close to its post-2003 average of 0.61, and the beta of EM corporate bonds to EM equities has averaged only 0.13 (Chart 14). Despite having a lower annualized return11  than EM equities, 5.6% versus 8.3%, EM corporate bonds had almost half the realized volatility, and so outperformed equities on a risk-adjusted basis. In fact, since late 2007, they have generally outperformed EM equities even in absolute terms, despite a few periods of EM equity outperformance. Like sovereigns, EM corporate bonds provided investors with a cushion against equity downside risk. For example, during the 2015/2016 slowdown in China and emerging economies, EM equities fell by almost 28%, whereas EM corporate bonds fell by only 5% (Chart 15). Chart 15...With Lower Drawdowns On a valuation basis, however, EM corporate bonds have looked unattractive relative to EM equities, providing investors with 4% real yield, compared to an equity earnings yield of 7% since 2004 (Chart 16). Nevertheless, the current level of spreads points to moderate returns for the asset class, slightly below 4% annualized over the next five years, assuming that historical default and recovery rates remain the same, and no change in spreads (Chart 17). This implies that exposure to emerging markets via corporate bonds should be more attractive than equities on a risk-adjusted basis.12 Chart 16EM Corporate Bonds Are Unattractive Compared To Equities Chart 17Forward Returns Driven By The Spread EM corporate debt is similar to its sovereign counterpart in the range of risk profiles of its constituents. Default figures vary significantly by region and during different crises. For example, the hard-currency corporate default rate for Argentinian corporates peaked at slightly over 50% during the 2001/2002 sovereign debt crisis, while for Chile and Mexico it remained below 10%. Surprisingly, default rates in emerging market corporate speculative-grade debt have on average been below those of both the US and Europe (Chart 18). Additionally, the 12-month trailing default rate for the overall EM corporate universe, as measured by Moodys’ Investors Service, at the end of 2018 was lower than for advanced economies – at 1.4% versus 1.6%.13 Chart 18Default Rates In EM Are Surprisingly Lower Than In DM Chart 19EM Corporates Suffer From Weaker Balance Sheets   EM corporate spreads are driven by a few main variables – revenue and profit growth, the business cycle, and the exchange rate. The health of EM corporates is also an important factor. This is an area of concern as corporate leverage levels have risen since 2010, and EM firms’ ability to service debt – gauged by their interest-coverage ratio – has fallen to below 2008 levels (Chart 19). Political turmoil can upset markets. Even though investors do not face the risk of currency depreciation with hard-currency debt, EM corporates with revenues mostly in local currency, face higher debt-repayment risk during a slowdown in their economies. Local-Currency Sovereign Debt Chart 20There Is Value In EM Local-Currency Bonds Emerging-market governments, to avoid foreign currency liquidity crunches, have in recent years shifted some of their debt issuance to their own currency. However, to attract investors, yields on local-currency sovereign bonds have to compensate for the added layer of currency risk as well as conventional sovereign risk. Over the lifetime of the index,14 since 2003, yields on local-currency sovereign debt have averaged 6.7%, compared to 2.5% for the US Treasury index, 2.4% for the euro area treasury index, and 0.63% for the Japanese treasury index (Chart 20). Since 2004, EM local sovereign bonds have provided investors with attractive returns. On an annualized basis, they have returned 8.4% and 6.8% in local terms and dollar terms, respectively, albeit with higher volatility than their hard-currency counterparts on a common-currency basis (Table 2). However, those returns remain higher than those of government bonds in developed economies such as Germany and Japan, both in local- currency terms and on an unhedged basis from a USD perspective. Table 2EM Local-Currency Bonds Outperforming Other DM Government Bonds In USD And Local Currency Terms Investors allocating to this segment assume a simple yet plausible notion: that EM economies will never default on debt issued in their own currency, as they can easily “print more money”. This is partially correct: default rates across rated EM sovereign local debt remain lower than for foreign-currency sovereign debt (Table 3). Table 3Default Rates: Local-Currency Debt Versus Hard-Currency Debt Most interestingly, the gap in default rates between B- and CCC-rated bonds illustrates the “near certainty” of default for low-credit-rated sovereigns ahead of time. However, proponents of the notion that governments will not default neglect the consequences those economies will suffer if they monetize public debt: currency devaluation and high inflation, which turn into weak economic growth and tightening monetary policy, leading to a further weakening in growth.  The case of Argentina between 1998 and 2002 is a perfect example of this mechanism. The economy was hurting under an uncompetitive pegged currency as well as a large debt burden. The government’s move to increase taxes, as a solution to boost government revenues, triggered a cascade of events which resulted in faltering economic growth, increased unemployment, abandonment of the currency peg, and interest rates as high as 100%, ultimately leading to Argentina’s default on its local-currency sovereign debt (Chart 21). Chart 21Argentina: A Case Study Chart 22Country Breakdown Of Local-Currency EM Sovereigns Argentina was recently removed from J.P. Morgan’s EM local-currency sovereign index due to the capital controls the authorities have instituted. As of mid-February, Mexico was the largest issuer in the index along with Indonesia, Brazil, and Thailand close behind (Chart 22). J.P. Morgan also announced that it would gradually add Chinese government bonds to its local sovereign bond indexes over a period of 10 months starting February 2020, up to the 10% country cap.15 This move is likely to push the index’s yield lower as Chinese yields are below the current yield on the index. There is some overlap between the drivers of local- and hard-currency sovereign spreads. The most important factor for investors to consider is the direction of emerging market currencies versus the US dollar. This relationship closely tracks inflation differentials between the US and EM economies (Chart 23). Chart 23The Link Between EM Currencies And Inflation Chart 24The USD Is The Most Important Factor To Consider   The top panel in Chart 24 emphasizes this point. It shows that EM local-currency sovereign bonds from a USD perspective have returned -2.8% since the peak in EM currencies in early 2013. This coincides with a time when EM currencies, on a real effective exchange rate basis, weakened against the US dollar (Chart 24, bottom panel). Other drivers of local-currency sovereign yields include commodity prices, global trade, and EM sovereign bond yields. However, this year has witnessed a significant decoupling between local bond yields and these drivers (Chart 25). Chart 25Sustainable Divergence? Chart 26Investors Continue To Hunt For Yield In Emerging Markets Our EM strategists wonder whether we are seeing a “new normal” for EM local bond yields – a paradigm in which they fall, not rise, during periods of slowing global growth and behave similarly to DM yields.16  This, however, would imply that investors view EM local debt as a safe haven rather than a risky asset class. We agree with their conclusion that the recent rally in EM local sovereign bonds – hence the decline in yields – was due, rather, to investors’ hunt for yield in an environment of over $10 trillion of negative-yielding debt (Chart 26). This trend is likely to continue in the short term until there is a sustained pickup in global growth. Once that happens, long-term yields are likely to rise in tandem (Chart 27). Chart 27ALong Term Yields Will Rise When Global Growth Picks Up Chart 27BLong Term Yields Will Rise When Global Growth Picks Up Diversification And Portfolio Impact Investors with a broad mandate can think about EMD as part of their overall portfolios. We analyze how the addition of EMD to a monthly rebalanced “conventional” portfolio, consisting of 50% global equities, 30% global treasurys, and 20% global corporate debt (split equally between investment-grade and high-yield bonds), would have performed since 2003. We found that the incremental additions of each of the three segments of EMD – from 5% to 20% each – produced a higher portfolio risk-adjusted return relative to the conventional portfolio. In all cases, replacing global equities, treasurys, and corporate bonds with EM debt, led either to a higher annualized portfolio return, reduced volatility, or sometimes both (Table 4). Unsurprisingly, given the cyclicality of EM assets, the “enhanced” portfolios have a higher correlation with global equities, as well as with DM corporate bonds (Table 5). Table 4Portfolio Simulation: Risk-Return Profiles (Feb. 2003 – Feb. 2020) Table 5EMD Is Highly Correlated With Global Equities And Corporate Bonds It is important to note, however, that most of the outperformance from the enhanced portfolios – particularly in the most heavily EMD-tilted portfolios – occurred before the slowdown in emerging economies beginning in 2013 (Chart 28). Since 2013, as the USD appreciated against EM currencies, allocating to EM local-currency sovereign bonds detracted from portfolio returns. During this period other EM risk assets, such as equities and corporate bonds, also underperformed their DM counterparts. Chart 28Allocating To EMD Adds Some Value Our Current View Over the past few years, GAA has been structurally negative on EM risk assets – both equity and debt. Productivity levels, far below historical averages, have been a key reason for this view (Chart 29). In a previous Special Report, we argued that productivity needs to mean-revert to its historical average for emerging markets to perform well, but that this is unlikely without structural reform. 17 Chart 29Global Productivity Growth Levels Chart 30Divergence Between Spreads And Growth   Tactically, however, there are times when EM assets can outperform despite the structural headwinds (2016-2017 was an example of this). This could happen again later this year, if global growth continues to rebound. Nonetheless, this optimistic view is on hold due to the risk to global growth in the short term from the coronavirus outbreak. Our global strategists expect global growth to fall to zero in the first quarter of 2020, before picking up throughout the rest of the year – assuming the outbreak is contained within the next few weeks.18  Providing this happens, and our view of global growth reaccelerating pans out, EMD should perform well. Within the asset class, segment selection is key. The environment is likely to be more favorable for EM hard-currency sovereign debt than hard-currency corporate debt or local-currency sovereign bonds. The recent divergence between hard-currency sovereign spreads and growth metric could point to an attractive entry point for investors (Chart 30). We remain cautious on EM corporate bonds, which are vulnerable in the face of sluggish domestic demand in most emerging economies, leading to contracting profits (Chart 31). A weaker USD, when global growth recovers, helped by a dovish stance from the Fed, should keep US financial conditions loose and help EM local-currency sovereign debt perform well (Chart 32). However, relative financial conditions between the US and emerging markets are just as important to monitor. If growth in EM economies fails to pick up, EM currencies could depreciate, putting downward pressure on local-currency sovereign bonds.  Chart 31EM Corporates Face Weak Domestic Demand Chart 32Easier US Financial Conditions Lead To Better EM LC Sovereign Returns We will wait to pull the trigger on this recommendation until we get further clarity regarding the impact on growth of the coronavirus outbreak. Conclusion EMD has grown to become an interesting asset class for allocators, allowing them to capitalize on bonds with higher yields than their DM counterparts. Not only has EMD provided higher returns, it gives equity-like exposure to emerging markets with significantly reduced downside during recessions and market selloffs. We recommend clients view EMD as three separate segments – hard-currency sovereign debt, hard-currency corporate debt, and local-currency sovereign debt – due to the different dynamics that influence each segment. Global growth, the direction of EM currencies versus the US dollar, and EM domestic demand are the three most important overall factors to consider when allocating to any of the segments of EMD.   Amr Hanafy, Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1We use the BIS’s definition of international debt securities (IDS) for hard-currency debt, and domestic debt securities (DDS) for local-currency debt. 2Includes both financial and nonfinancial corporations. 3For the purpose of assessing this segment, we use the broad EM and regional Bloomberg Barclays USD Aggregate Sovereign Indices, which track USD-denominated bonds issued by EM governments. Another commonly used index is the J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s EMBI Global Diversified Index, which tracks EM hard-currency sovereign debt, as well as fully owned and explicitly guaranteed quasi-issuers. Additionally, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co’s suite of indices following EM Sovereign debt includes their EMBI+ index. This index is primarily focused on EM sovereign issuers, however with a stricter liquidity requirement for inclusion. The reason why we do not rely on this index is due to its tilt towards LATAM and away from Middle Eastern and Asian economies. 4Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, “A Primer On EM External Debt,” available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 5Commercial index providers treat such distinctions by separating quasi-sovereign entities that are/are not fully owned by governments. For example, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.’s EMBI Global Diversified Index, probably the most widely used index in tracking EM hard-currency sovereign debt, includes sovereign debt as well as fully owned and explicitly guaranteed quasi-issuers in its index. 6Please see “Fears mount over rise of sovereign-backed corporate debt,” Financial Times, dated January 5, 2016. 7Please see “Dubai World secures deal to restructure $14.6bn debt” Financial Times, dated January 12, 2015. 8For the purpose of assessing this segment, we use the broad EM and regional USD Aggregate Corporate Indices, which track USD-denominated bonds issued by EM corporates. 9Includes Basic Industry, Capital Goods, Communication, Consumer Cyclical, Consumer Non-Cyclical, Energy, Technology, and Transportation sectors. 10Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “High-Yield Bonds: Low Volatility Equities?”, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 11Annualized returns since 2004. 12Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed and Refined,” available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 13Please see “Emerging market corporate default and recovery rates, 1995 – 2018,” Moody’s Investors Service, dated January 30, 2019. 14For the purpose of assessing this segment, we use the J.P Morgan GBI-EM global diversified index, an investable benchmark accessible to most investors. This index tracks local-currency bonds issued by EM governments. 15Please see “JP Morgan to add China bonds to GBI-EM indexes from February 2020,” Reuters, dated September 4, 2019. 16Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, “EM Local Bonds: A New Normal?”, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 17Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report titled, “Return Assumptions – Refreshed and Refined,” available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 18Please see Global Investment Strategy Report titled, “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” available at gis.bcaresearch.com.    

Highlights Global growth will quickly recover if the Covid-19 outbreak is soon controlled. If the virus's spread doesn't slow, a worldwide recession will take hold in 2020. BCA remains cyclically bullish, but tactical caution is warranted as long as uncertainty around Covid-19 remains high. A strong dollar is generally good for the US, except for exporters. The dollar possesses greater cyclical upside, a trend that will affect global asset allocation. The dollar will correct in 2020, which could allow cyclical stocks and value stocks to outperform growth equities in the short term. Foreign equities will also temporarily outperform US stocks this year. Feature 10-year Treasury yields hit an all-time low of 1.26% this morning, and the S&P 500 finally buckled under the pressure. Meanwhile, the US dollar seems unstoppable and commodity prices are still hobbling near recent lows. The economic and financial outlook for 2020 is unusually divided. On the positive front, economic momentum slowly turned the corner after a soft 2019. Liquidity aggregates have been improving, economic sentiment is bottoming and inventories are melting away. However, if Covid-19 morphs into a global pandemic, then these nascent positives will disappear. Faced with mounting uncertainty, the S&P 500 could still face additional tactical downward pressure. However, if Covid-19 does not turn into a global pandemic, then equities should recover in the second quarter. Additionally, the dollar’s strength remains a great concern, and for 2020, it too will depend on Covid-19's continued spread. While the next 12 months are likely to be painful for the dollar, its cyclical highs still lie ahead. The dollar’s trend will affect relative sector and regional performance. Covid-19 Under Control? The Covid-19 outbreak is key to the 2020 outlook. If Covid-19 is contained, then global growth can recover after a dismal first quarter. However, if the recent uptick in cases outside of China continues to increase beyond the coming two to three weeks, 2020 will witness a quick but painful recession as governments will impose quarantines and consumer confidence will collapse. If Covid-19 is contained, then global growth can recover after a dismal first quarter. Our colleagues from BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy service estimate that Covid-19 could easily curtail global growth by more than 1% this quarter. China’s economy is experiencing a severe contraction, which should result in negative seasonally adjusted quarterly growth in Q1.1 Live indicators, such as the number of traffic jams in Shanghai streets or daily coal consumption are very weak, standing 20% and 32% below last year’s levels. Moreover, China accounts for 19.3% of global GDP, and its imports account for 12.5% of the rest of the world’s exports. China’s weak domestic activity has a ripple effect around the world. Making matters worse, the recent factory closings are scuttling global supply chains, which further lowers non-Chinese output. Finally, Chinese tourism accounts for 4.7% of global service exports, which will be deeply negatively impacted by the current immobility of Chinese citizens. As severe as the impact of Covid-19 will be in Q1, it will be fleeting. Epidemics and natural disasters may stop economic activity for a finite time, but they create pent-up demand that boosts economic growth in the following quarters. In the case of SARS, the lost output was recovered over the subsequent two quarters. Excess money is expanding at a brisk pace, which confirms that both the quantity and price of global output can rebound quickly (Chart I-1). The same is true of various liquidity measures, such as BCA Research’s US Financial Liquidity Index, which has an excellent record of forecasting the Global Leading Economic Indicator, the US ISM, and EM export prices. Most importantly, deleveraging is a tertiary concern for Chinese policymakers for the next two years. PMIs show that inventory levels are rapidly falling around the world. A purge in inventory allows pent-up demand to boost economic activity. Nowhere is this trend more powerful than in Sweden. Manufactured goods, especially intermediate and capital goods, represent a large percentage of Sweden’s output and exports. Thus, Sweden sits early in the global supply chains. Today, the decline in Swedish inventories is so deep that the country’s new orders-to-inventories ratio is surging, which historically indicates increases in our Global Industrial Activity Nowcast as well as US and global capital expenditures (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Ample Liquidity Will Cushion The Blow Chart I-2Positive Signal From Inventories   Improving liquidity and purged inventory bode very well for global economic activity. Our Global Growth Indicator, a variable mainly based on commodity prices and the bond yields of cyclical economies, has already predicted an improvement in global industrial production (Chart I-3). Our models showed that even Germany’s economy, which is largely driven by global economic gyrations, will experience a turnaround despite abysmal industrial production readings (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Global Growth Indicator Continues To Rebound Chart I-4There's Hope Even For Germany The Federal Reserve is prepared to nurture the recovery. Falling job ads in the US, along with the New York Fed Underlying Inflation Gauge and BCA Research’s Pipeline Inflation Indicator point to a slowdown in core CPI (Chart I-5). Additionally, the FOMC wants to see inflation expectations recover toward the 2.3% to 2.5% zone reached when economic agents believe in the Fed’s capacity to sustain core PCE near 2%. BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy service’s adaptive expectations models show that based on current realized inflation trends, it would take a substantially long time for inflation expectations to move back into that zone. Chart I-5Disinflationary Pressures In The US The current health crisis is unleashing a wave of global stimulus. EM central banks, particularly in the Philippines and Indonesia, are cutting rates, thanks to low global and domestic inflation. Fiscal stimulus is expanding. Singapore has announced an SGD 800 million package aimed at fighting the impact of Covid-19; South Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia are also boosting spending. Even Germany is considering fiscal stimulus to support its economy. In China, the PBoC has injected RMB 2.3 trillion so far this year and cut rates. Most importantly, deleveraging is a tertiary concern for Chinese policymakers for the next two years. Factions opposed to President Xi will use his handling of the virus crisis to capitalize on discontent and gain more seats on the Politburo and Central Committee at the 2022 Communist Party Congress. To combat this opposition, President Xi is abandoning the deleveraging campaign and is generously stimulating the economy to generate greater income gains. The news is not all positive however, as the risk of a global pandemic remains elevated. There is no consensus in the medical community as to whether or not the pandemic is in remission. Chinese factories are re-opening and people are on the move, which is giving the virus an opportunity to spread again. Worryingly, new clusters of cases have popped up in South Korea, Iran, and Italy. In the US too, an individual without any links to previously known cases has fallen ill. These developments must be monitored closely. As BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy service recently showed, the 2009/10 H1N1 outbreak (known as swine flu) affected between 700 million and 1 billion people worldwide.2 According to the Lancet, it resulted in 151,700 to 575,400 deaths or a fatality rate of 0.01% to 0.08%, well below current estimates of 2.3% for Covid-19. Thus, if Covid-19 spreads as much as H1N1, it could kill between 16 and 23 million people worldwide in a short amount of time. If such an outcome comes to pass, then we are looking at a global recession. Factory closures will grow in length and prevalence, which will paralyze global supply chains. International tourism will collapse and consumers around the world will shun crowded public places, which will hurt consumption substantially. Prudence forces us to not be cavalier and protect ourselves against what would be an extremely adverse outcome if Covid-19 were to spread much further. The uncertainty around such binary outcomes is hard to price for markets. As we argued last month, investors must input large risk premia in asset prices to compensate for this lack of visibility. When we last wrote, we saw no such margin of safety in the S&P 500, but its 11.5% collapse since February 19 has gone a long way in adjusting this mispricing. In fact, some bargains in the industrial, energy or transport sectors have emerged. Bottom Line: Investors should continue to hedge their exposure to risk assets until the situation becomes clearer. For now, our central scenario remains that new cases will soon peak and economic activity will recover. In this case, stocks and bond yields now have very limited downside, and they will recover later this year. Equities will ultimately reach new highs. However, prudence forces us to not be cavalier and protect ourselves against what would be an extremely adverse outcome if Covid-19 were to spread much further. The US Benefits From A Strong Dollar Looking beyond Covid-19, BCA Research expects the US dollar to correct in 2020. However, we increasingly view this downdraft as a temporary phenomenon. The dollar’s cyclical highs remain ahead in the next two to three years. Ultimately, the US is a consumer-driven economy and households benefit from a firm currency. A higher dollar also acts as a tax cut for consumers. Surprisingly, the dollar does not have a negative impact on employment. The unemployment rate and the dollar are negatively correlated (Chart I-6). The 27% dollar rally since 2011 is not antithetical with a US unemployment rate at a 51-year low of 3.6%. Less than 10% of US jobs are in the manufacturing sector, compared with 14.4% and 15.8% in Europe and Japan respectively (Chart I-7). Moreover, 93.6% of jobs created since the labor market troughed in 2010 have been in the service sector. Given that the service sector is domestically driven and is immune to the deflationary impact of a stronger dollar, the low share of manufacturing in the US’s GDP means that the labor market is resistant to a firm USD. Chart I-6The Labor Market Does Not Abhor A Strong Dollar... Chart I-7...Because The US Is Manufacturing Light   A higher dollar also acts as a tax cut for consumers. A dollar rally leads to a rapid decline in the share of disposable income spent on food and energy (Chart I-8). As a result, households have more discretionary disposable income to spend on services that generate domestic jobs. A strong dollar makes job creation less inflationary and permits the Fed to keep monetary policy easier for longer. A strengthening dollar redistributes income to the middle class, which supports consumption. When the dollar rallies, the share of salaries in national income increases because the dollar creates a headwind for profit margins (Chart I-9). Rich households garner more than 50% of their income from profits and rents. Therefore, if a stronger dollar increases the share GDP accounted for by wages, then a rising greenback redistributes income to middle-class households away from the rich. This redistribution is positive for consumption because middle-class households have a marginal propensity to consume of 90%, compared with 60% for households in the top decile of the income distribution. Furthermore, the more consumption can grow as a share of GDP, the more the economy can withstand a rallying currency. Chart I-8A Firm Dollar Cut "Taxes" Chart I-9The Dollar Is A Redistributor   Chart I-10A Strong Dollar Boosts Real Incomes A strong dollar also weighs on inflation, which has positive ramifications for consumers and the economy. By mid-2015, the dollar had rallied by an impressive 13.8%. While nominal wages grew at 2.2%, well below today’s rate of 3.8%, real wages were expanding at their highest rate in this cycle, courtesy of low inflation. Real consumption was also enjoying its largest gain in this cycle, expanding at 4.6% per annum (Chart I-10). A firm dollar also dampens inflation expectations (Chart I-11), allowing a flattening of the Phillips Curve, which links inflation to the unemployment rate. In other words, a strong dollar makes job creation less inflationary and permits the Fed to keep monetary policy easier for longer, delaying the inevitable date when the Fed kills the business cycle. Moreover, the disinflationary impact of a rising dollar puts downward pressure on interest rates (Chart I-12). In turn, lower rates keep financial conditions easier than would have otherwise been the case, which supports growth. Chart I-11A Hard Currency Dampens Inflation Expectations Chart I-12A Strong Dollar Depresses Interest Rates   A counterargument to the view that a strong US dollar is good for the business cycle is that it will hurt capex. While true, it is easy to overestimate this impact on growth. Not only does capex represent a much lower share of GDP than consumption, it most often contributes less to changes in GDP than consumer spending (Chart I-13). Moreover, lower interest rates triggered by a firm dollar support residential activity, which in turn mitigates some of the drag created by lower corporate capex. Finally, as Chart I-14 illustrates, 74.7% of the US’s capex emanates from sectors that are minimally affected by the dollar, creating greater resilience to a stronger currency than many realize. Chart I-13Consumption Dominates Capex Chart I-14Even Within Capex, The Dollar Is Not As Dominant As Believed   Chart I-15Symptoms Of US Resilience The US economy is indeed robust in the face of the strong dollar. If the dollar was hurting the US, then Germany should benefit from a falling euro. However, German net exports are weakening. Moreover, US profits are not lagging European ones as US firms continue to benefit from stronger global pricing power than their European counterparts. Finally, capex intentions in the US are surprisingly resilient (Chart I-15). Three forces increase the US’s economic capacity to withstand a strong dollar this cycle. First, the structural improvement in the US’s energy trade balance allows the US current account to remain stable at -2.5% of GDP despite a widening non-oil trade deficit. Secondly, the Trump Administration’s profligate spending boosts demand and insulates the economy from a rising dollar. BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy service expects President Trump to win the election, albeit with a conservative probability of 55%, but also believes a Democratic victory would lead to larger spending increases than tax hikes. The current expansive fiscal policy set up will thus remain in place going forward. Finally, the Sino-US Phase One deal will provide a welcome relief valve for US manufacturers, who are victims of the stronger dollar. While economic reality probably will not allow the deal to boost China’s purchases of US goods by $200 billion vis-à-vis the higher water mark of $186 billion of 2017 (Chart I-16), nonetheless it will force China to substitute goods purchases away from Europe and Japan in favor of the US. A hard dollar can feed on itself by widening the gap between US and foreign growth, a trend currently underway. Our favorite structural valuation measure also does not suggest that the dollar is currently a major hurdle for the US economy. BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy service’s Long-Term Fair Value models, which account for differences in the productivity and neutral rate of interest of the US and its trading partners, show that the dollar is still roughly fairly valued and that its equilibrium is trending up (Chart I-17). Chart I-16The Phase One Deal Is Ambitious Chart I-17The Dollar Is Not Expensive Enough To Cause Pain   In this context, the US dollar has further cyclical upside. A strong dollar may not be as negative to the US economy as investors believe, but it hurts emerging economies. According to the Bank for International Settlements, there is more than US$12 trillion of USD-denominated foreign currency debt in the world. Therefore, a firm dollar tightens financial conditions outside the US. A hard dollar can feed on itself by widening the gap between US and foreign growth, a trend currently underway. Investment Implications For The Remainder Of The Cycle… Chart I-18The S&P 500 Likes A Firm Dollar The dollar’s additional cyclical upside is good news for US capital markets over the next few years. The S&P 500 performs better when the dollar is firm (Chart I-18). US stocks generated average annual returns of 12% during the 53% dollar rally of 1978 to 1985, 12% during the 33% dollar rally of 1995 to 2002, and 11% as the USD appreciated 27% during the past nine years. This compares well to an annualized return of 4% when the dollar suffers cyclical bear markets. The following observations explain why the US stock market performs better when the dollar appreciates: A strong dollar allows interest rates to remain lower than would have been the case otherwise, which also allows stock multiples to remain elevated. A strong dollar elongates the US business cycle by delaying the Fed’s tightening of monetary conditions. A longer business cycle dampens volatility and invites investors to bid down the equity risk premium. A strong dollar supports the US corporate bond market. A robust dollar may negatively impact bonds issued by energy or natural resources companies, but it also keeps the Fed at bay, which prevents a generalized increase in volatility and spreads. Lower rates allow for easy financial conditions and plentiful buybacks, a helpful combination for equities. Chart I-19The Dollar Holds The Key To Growth Vs Value A hard dollar is fundamental to the outperformance of US equities relative to global stocks. Global investors usually not do not hedge the currency component of equity returns. A firm USD automatically creates a powerful advantage for US stocks that invites greater inflows. In addition, a climbing dollar hurts value stocks (Chart I-19). Value stocks overweight cyclical sectors such as financials, industrials, materials and energy, sectors which depend on higher inflation, expanding EM economies and higher yields to outperform, three variables that suffer from an appreciating USD. An underperformance of value stocks also causes a poor outcome for foreign markets, which heavily overweight value over growth (Table I-1).   Table I-1Key Overweights By Market Chart I-20A Strong Dollar Fuels Tech Multiples The tech sector also benefits from a firm dollar. Tech stocks generate long-term earnings growth and they are generally not as sensitive to the global business cycle as traditional cyclical equities are. When the global business cycle weakens, yields decline and the dollar appreciates, then earnings growth becomes scarce. In this environment, investors willingly bid up assets that can generate a structural earning expansion. Tech multiples become the prime beneficiary of that phenomenon (Chart I-20), which allows US stocks to meaningfully outperform the rest of the world when the dollar hardens. Bottom Line: A firm dollar will allow the business cycle to expand for longer, which suggests that the dollar will make greater highs over the coming two to three years. Within this time frame, US stocks will likely continue to outperform their global counterparts, despite their valuations disadvantage. … And For 2020 In 2020, the dominant driver for the US dollar will be global growth. The pickup in BCA’s Global Growth Indicator and the elevated chance of a rising Chinese combined credit and fiscal impulse will lift global activity and thus, force down the USD (Chart I-21). Additionally, existing trends in global money supply growth reinforce the near-term downside risk to the dollar, assuming Covid-19 does not become a global pandemic (Chart I-22). Chart I-21China Stimulus Will Lift Growth Chart I-22Bearish Monetary Dynamics For The Dollar In 2020   Chart I-23The Euro Is Not The Best Anti-Dollar Bet For 2020 The euro is unlikely to be the main beneficiary from a dollar correction. EUR/USD does not yet trade at a discount to our fair value estimates consistent with an intermediate-term bottom (Chart I-23). Moreover, the euro lags pro-cyclical currencies such as the AUD, CAD, NZD, or SEK, when global growth starts to recover but inflation remains weak. Finally, the Phase One Sino-US trade deal will create a drag on the positive impact of a Chinese recovery on European exports for machinery.3 Bottom Line: A dollar correction in 2020 is congruent with a period of underperformance for tech stocks relative to industrials, financials, materials and energy stocks. The correction also supports value relative to growth equities this year, as well as foreign bourses relative to the S&P 500. Investors who elect to bet against the dollar in 2020 should only do so with great caution as they will be betting against the broader cyclical trend. A correction in the dollar, by definition, is transitory. Thus, the aforementioned equity implications will also likely be temporary. Ultimately, the US economy remains the global growth leader in the post-2008 environment. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst February 27, 2020 Next Report: March 26, 2020 II. Labor Strikes Back The balance of power in US labor negotiations has shifted infrequently in the industrial age. Successful strikes beget strikes. Key factors that have bolstered management for decades are poised to reverse. Public opinion has a significant impact on labor-management outcomes. Elections have consequences. Organized labor isn’t dead. Where will inflation come from, and when will it arrive? An investor who answers these questions will have advance notice of the end of the expansion and the bull markets in equities and credit. Per our base-case scenario, the expansion won’t end until monetary policy settings become restrictive, and the Fed won’t pursue restrictive policy unless inflation pressures force its hand. The fur flies when each party thinks the other should make the bulk of the concessions: labor negotiations over the next couple of years could be interesting. Inured by a decade of specious warnings that “money printing” would let the inflation genie out of the bottle, investors are skeptical that inflation will ever re-emerge. The inflation backdrop has become much more supportive in the last few years, however, upon the closing of the output gap, and the stimulus-driven jolt in aggregate demand. Output gaps in other major economies will have to narrow further (Chart II-1) for global goods inflation to gain traction, and mild inflation elsewhere in the G7 (Chart II-2) suggests that goods prices are not about to surge. Chart II-1There's Still Enough Spare Capacity ... Chart II-2... To Restrain Global Goods Inflation Services are not so easily imported, though, and services inflation is a more fully domestic phenomenon. Rising wages could be the spur for services inflation, and the labor market is tight on several counts: the unemployment rate is at a 50-year low; the broader definition of unemployment, also encompassing discouraged workers and the underemployed, reached a new all-time (25-year) low in December; the JOLTS job openings and quits rates at or near their all-time (19-year) highs; and the NFIB survey and a profusion of anecdotal reports suggest that employers are having a hard time finding quality candidates. With labor demand exceeding supply, wages for nonsupervisory workers have duly risen (Chart II-3). Gains in other compensation series have been muted, however, and investors have come to yawn and roll their eyes at any mention of the Phillips Curve. Chart II-3Wage Growth Is Solid, But It's Lost A Good Bit Of Momentum Perhaps it’s not the Phillips Curve that’s broken, but workers’ spirits. A supine organized labor movement could explain why the Phillips Curve itself is so flat. As the old saying goes, if you don’t ask, you know what you’re going to get, and beleaguered unions and their memberships, cowed by two decades of woe coinciding with China’s entry into the WTO (Chart II-4), have been afraid to ask. Strikes are the most potent weapon in labor’s arsenal; if it can’t credibly wield them, it is sure to be steamrolled. Chart II-4Globalization Has Been Unkind To Labor Two years of high-profile strike victories by public- and private-sector employees may suggest that the sands have begun to shift, however, and inspired our examination of labor’s muscle. An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History Let's begin our exercise with a review of US labor relations. The Colosseum Era (1800-1933) We view US industrial labor history as having three distinct phases. We label the first, which lasted until the New Dealers took over Washington, the Colosseum era (Figure II-1), because labor and management were about as evenly matched as the Christians and the lions in ancient Rome. Uprisings in textile mills, steel factories, and mines were swiftly squelched, often violently. Management was able to draw on public resources like the police and state National Guard units to put down strikes, or was able to unleash its own security or ad hoc militia forces on strikers or union organizers without state interference. The public, staunchly opposed to anarchists and Communists, generally sided with employers. Figure II-1Significant Events In The Colosseum Era Unions won some small-bore victories during the period, but they nearly all proved fleeting as companies regularly took back concessions and public officials and courts failed to enforce the loose patchwork of laws aimed at ameliorating industrial workers’ plight. Labor inevitably suffered the brunt of the casualties when conflicts turned violent. Workers were hardly choir boys, and seem to have initiated violence as often as employers’ proxies, but they were inevitably outgunned, especially when police, guardsmen or soldiers were marshaled against them. Societal norms have changed dramatically since the Colosseum era, but the lore of past “battles” encourages an us-versus-them union mentality that occasionally colors negotiations. Employees and employers need each other, and their tether can only be stretched so far before it starts pulling them back together. The UAW Era (1933-1981) Established presumptions about the employer-employee relationship were upended when FDR entered the White House. Viewing labor organization as a way to ease national suffering, New Dealers passed the Wagner Act to grant private-sector workers unionization and collective bargaining rights, and created the National Labor Relations Board to ensure that employers respected them. The Wagner Act greatly aided labor organization, enabling unions to build up the heft to engage with employers on an equal footing. Unionized workers still fought an uphill battle in the wake of the Depression, but tactics like the sit-down strike (Box II-1) produced some early labor victories that paved the way for more. BOX II-1 David Topples Goliath: The Flint Sit-Down Strike   The broad mass of factory workers had not been organized to any meaningful degree before the New Deal, and the United Auto Workers (UAW) was not formed until 1935. Despite federal protections, the fledgling UAW had to conduct its operations covertly, lest its members face employer reprisals. At the end of 1936, when it took on GM, only one in seven GM employees was a dues-paying member. The strike began the night of December 30th when workers in two of GM’s Flint auto body plants sat down at their posts, ignoring orders to return to work. The sit-down action was more effective than a conventional strike because it prevented GM from simply replacing the workers with strikebreakers. It also made GM think twice about attempting to remove them by force, lest valuable equipment be damaged. GM was unsure how to dislodge the workers after a court injunction it obtained on January 2nd went nowhere once the UAW publicized that the presiding judge held today’s equivalent of $4 million in GM shares. It turned off the heat in one of the plants on January 11th, before police armed with tear gas and riot guns stormed it. The police were rebuffed by strikers who threw bottles, rocks, and car parts from the plant’s upper windows while spraying torrents of water from its fire hoses. No one died in the melee, but the strike was already front-page news across the country, and the attack helped the strikers win public sympathy. Michigan’s governor responded by calling out the National Guard to prevent a rematch, shielding the strikers from any further violence. The strike was finally settled on February 11th when GM accepted the UAW as the workers’ exclusive bargaining agent and agreed not to hinder its attempts to organize its work force. The UAW signed a similar accord with Chrysler immediately after the Flint sit-down strike, and the CIO (the UAW’s parent union) swiftly reached an agreement with US Steel that significantly improved steelworkers’ pay and hours. Labor unions’ path wasn’t always smooth – Ford fiercely resisted unionization until 1941, and ten protesters were killed, and dozens injured, by Chicago police at a peaceful Memorial Day demonstration in support of strikers against the regional steelmakers that did not follow US Steel’s conciliatory lead – but it generally trended upward after the New Deal (Figure II-2). From the 1950 signing of the Treaty of Detroit, a remarkably generous five-year agreement between the UAW and the Big Three automakers, the UAW ran roughshod over the US auto industry for three-plus decades. The New Deal’s encouragement of unionization had given labor a fighting chance, and was the foundation on which all of its subsequent gains were built. Figure II-2Significant Events In The UAW Era The Reagan-Thatcher Era (1981 - ??) The disastrous strike by the air traffic controllers’ union (PATCO) is the watershed event that heralded the end of unions’ golden age. Strikes by federal employees were illegal, so PATCO broke the law when it went on strike in April 1981, spurning the generous contract terms its leaders had negotiated with the Reagan administration. PATCO had periodically held the flow of air traffic hostage throughout the seventies to extract concessions from its employer, earning the lasting enmity of airlines, government officials and the public. Other unions were aghast at PATCO’s openly contemptuous attitude, and declined to support it with sympathy strikes, while conservatives blasted the new administration behind closed doors for the profligacy of its initial PATCO offer. President Reagan therefore had an unfettered opportunity to make an example out of the controllers, and he seized it, firing those who failed to return to work within 48 hours and banning them from ever returning to government employment. A fed-up public supported the president’s hard line, and employers and unions got the message that a new sheriff was in town. His deputies were not inclined to enforce labor-friendly statues, or investigate labor grievances, with much vigor, and they would not necessarily look the other way when public sector unions illegally struck. Management has been in the driver's seat, but the factors that have kept it there have a high risk of reversing. Unions also found themselves on the wrong side of the growing disaffection with bureaucracy that was bound up with the push for deregulation. The globalization wave further eroded labor’s power. Unskilled workers in the developed world would be hammered by the flat world that allowed people, capital and information to hopscotch around the globe. Eight years of a Democratic presidency brought no relief, as the “Third Way” Clinton administration embraced the free-market tide (Chart II-5), and the unionized share of employees has receded all the way back to mid-thirties levels (Chart II-6). Chart II-5Inequality Took Off ... Chart II-6... As Unions Lost Their Way A Fourth Phase? A handful of data points do not make a trend, especially in a series that stands out for its persistence, but the bargaining power pendulum could be shifting. Public school teachers won improbable statewide victories with illegal strikes in three highly conservative states in the first half of 2018 (Table II-1); a canny hotel workers union steered its members to big gains in their contract negotiations with Marriott in the second half of 2018; and the UAW bested General Motors and the rest of the Big Three automakers last fall. Unions may have more bargaining power than markets and employers realize, and they could be on the cusp of becoming more aggressive in flexing it. Table II-1Teachers' Unions Conquer The Red States Takeaways (I) There are two key takeaways from our historical review: 1. US industrial history makes it clear that employees are unlikely to gain ground if government sides with employers. Employees no longer have to fear that the state will look the other way while strikers are beaten, or fail to prosecute those responsible for loss of life, but they face especially long odds when the government is inclined to favor employers. Its thumb weighs heavily on the scale when it drags its feet on enforcement; cuts funding to agencies policing workplace standards; and appoints agency or department heads that are conditioned to see things solely from employers’ perspective, shaped by long careers in management. 2. Successful strikes beget strikes, and the converse is also true. Withholding their labor is employees’ most powerful weapon, and when employers can’t replace them cheaply and easily, strikes often succeed. Striking is frightening for an individual, however, because it cuts off his or her income (or sharply reduces it, if the striker’s union has a strike fund) until the strike is over. If the strike fails, the employee may find him/herself blacklisted, impairing his/her long-term income prospects on top of his/her short-term losses. Prudent workers should therefore strike sparingly, with the due consideration that a prudent poker player exercises before going all-in. Companies will do whatever they perceive to be socially acceptable in conflicts with employees, but no more. When other unions facing comparable conditions pull off successful strikes, it makes it much easier for another union to take the leap, in addition to making success more likely, provided conditions truly are comparable. “Before they occur, successful strikes appear impossible. Afterward, they seem almost inevitable .”4 The retrospective inevitability stiffens the spine of potential strikers who observe successful outcomes, and raises the bar for action among potential strikers who observe failures. “Just as defeats in struggle lead to demoralization and resignation, victories tend to beget more victories .”5 Public opinion matters just as surely as momentum, and it proved decisive in the Flint sit-down strike and in the air traffic controllers’ showdown with President Reagan. According to Gallup’s annual poll, Americans now regard unions as favorably as they did before Thatcher and Reagan came to power (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Could Unions Make A Comeback? Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them Since strikes are such an important determinant of the support for labor, what drives successful labor actions? The Origin Of Strikes Strikes (and lockouts) occur when labor and management cannot reach a mutually acceptable settlement, often because at least one side overestimates its bargaining power. It is easy to agree when labor and management hold similar views about each side’s relative power, as when both perceive that one of them is considerably stronger. In that case, a settlement favoring the stronger side can be reached fairly quickly, especially if the stronger side exercises some restraint and does not seek to impose terms that the weaker side can scarcely abide. Restraint is rational in repeated games like employer-employee bargaining, and when both parties recognize that relative bargaining positions are fluid, they are likely to exercise it. It's no surprise that unions have started to look pretty good to workers after a decade of sluggish growth and widening inequality. History shows that the pendulum between labor and management swings, albeit slowly, as societal views evolve6 and the business cycle fluctuates. As a general rule, management will have the upper hand during recessions, when the supply of workers exceeds demand, and labor will have the advantage when expansions are well advanced, and capacity tightens. A high unemployment rate broadly favors employers, and a low unemployment rate favors employees. Neither the number of work stoppages (Chart II-8, top panel), nor the number of workers involved (Chart II-8, middle panel) correlates very well with the unemployment gap (Chart II-8, bottom panel), in the Reagan-Thatcher era, however, as work stoppages have dwindled almost to zero. Chart II-8Swamped By The Legal And Regulatory Tide Game theory is better equipped than simple regression models to offer insight into the origin of strikes. We posit a simple framework in which each side can hold any of five perceptions of its own bargaining power, resulting in a total of 25 possible joint perceptions. Management (M) can believe it is way stronger than Labor (L), M >> L; stronger than Labor, M > L; roughly equal, M ≈ L; weaker than Labor, L > M; or way weaker than Labor, L >> M. Labor also holds one of these five perceptions, and the interaction of the two sides’ perceptions establishes the path negotiations will follow. Limiting our focus to today’s prevailing conditions, Figure II-3 displays only the outcomes consistent with management’s belief that it has the upper hand. For completeness, the exhibit lists all of labor’s potential perceptions, but we deem the two in which labor is feeling its oats (circled) to be most likely, given the success of recent high-profile strikes.7 Management’s confidence follows logically from four decades of victories, but may prove to be unfounded if its power has already peaked. Figure II-3The Eye Of The Beholder Strike outcomes turn on which side has overestimated its leverage. The broad factors we use to assess leverage are overall labor market slack; economic concentration; regulatory and legal trends; and the sustainability of either side’s accumulated advantage, which we describe as the labor-management rubber band. Other factors that matter on a case-by-case basis, but are beyond the scope of our analysis, include industry-level slack, a labor input’s susceptibility to automation, and the degree of labor specialization/skill involved in that input. For these micro-level factors, a given group of workers’ leverage is inversely related to the availability of substitutes for their input. Labor Market Slack              Despite muted wage growth, the labor market is demonstrably tight. The unemployment rate is at a 50-year low, the broader definition of unemployment is at the lowest level in its 26-year history, and the prime-age employment-to-population ratio is back to its 2001 levels, having surpassed the previous cycle’s peak (Chart II-9). The job openings rate is high, indicating that demand for workers is robust, and so is the quits rate, indicating that employers are competing vigorously to meet it. The NFIB survey’s job openings and hiring plans series (Chart II-10) echo the JOLTS findings. Chart II-9Prime-Age Employment Is At An 18-Year High ... Chart II-10... But There Are Still Lots Of Help Wanted Signs The lack of labor market slack decisively favors workers’ negotiating position. It is a sellers’ market when demand outstrips supply, and labor victories tend to be self-reinforcing. Successful strikes beget strikes, and management volunteers concessions as labor peace becomes a competitive advantage during strike waves. Given that the crisis-driven damage to the labor force participation rate has healed as the gap between the actual part rate (Chart II-11, solid line) and its demographically-determined structural proxy has closed (Chart II-11, dashed line), the burden of proof rests squarely with those who argue that there is an ample supply of workers waiting to come off the sidelines. Chart II-11The Labor Force Participation Gap Has Closed Economic Concentration The trend toward economic concentration (Chart II-12) has endowed the largest companies with greater market power, as evidenced by surging corporate profit margins. The greater the concentration of employment opportunities in local labor markets, the more closely they resemble monopsonies.8 Unfortunately for labor, monopsonies restrain prices just as monopolies inflate them. As we have shown,9 there is a robust inverse relationship between employment concentration and real wages (Chart II-13). Chart II-12Less Competition = More Power Chart II-13One Huge Buyer + Plus Multiple Small Sellers = Low Prices Economic concentration has been a major driver of management’s Reagan-Thatcher era dominance. Sleepy to indifferent antitrust enforcement has helped businesses capture market power, and it will continue to prevail through 2024 unless the Democrats take the White House in November. The silver lining for workers is that concentration could have the effect of promoting labor organization in services, where unions have heretofore made limited progress. The only way for employees to combat employers’ monopsony power is to organize their way to becoming a monopoly supplier of labor. Regulatory And Legal Trends Over the last four decades, unions have endured a near-constant drubbing from state capitols, federal agencies and the courts, as union and labor protections have been under siege from all sides. Since the air traffic controllers’ disastrous strike, labor’s regulatory and legal fortunes have most closely resembled the competitive fortunes of the Harlem Globetrotters’ beleaguered opposition. But the regulatory and legal tide has been such a huge benefit for management since the beginning of the Reagan administration that it cannot continue to maintain its pace. If the electorate has had enough of Reagan-Thatcher policies, elected officials will stop implementing them. Investors seem to assume that it will, however, to the extent that they think about it at all. It stands to reason that employers may be similarly complacent. We will look more closely at the presidential election and its potential consequences in Part 3, but labor concerns and inequality are capturing more attention, even among Republicans. With Republicans’ inclination to side with business only able to go in one direction, the chances are good that it has peaked. The Labor-Management Rubber Band For all of the romantic allure of labor’s battles with management in the Colosseum era, employees and employers have a deeply symbiotic relationship. One can’t exist without the other, and pursuing total victory in negotiations is folly. Even too many incremental wins can prove ruinous, as the UAW discovered to its chagrin in 2008. A half-century of generous compensation and stultifying work rules saddled Detroit automakers with a burden that would have put them out of business had the federal government not intervened. Table II-2Average Salaries Of Public School Teachers By State We think of labor and management as being linked by a tether with a finite range. Since neither side can thrive for long if the other side is suffering, the tether pulls the two sides closer together when the gap between them threatens to become too wide. When labor does too well for too long at management’s expense, profit margins shrink and the company’s viability as a going concern is threatened. When management does too well, deteriorating living standards drive the best employees away, undermining productivity and profitability. Before the low-paying entity’s work force becomes a listless dumping ground for other firms’ castoffs, it may rise up and strike out of desperation. Teachers’ unions might have appeared to be setting themselves up for a fall in 2018 by illegally striking in staunchly conservative West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Per the National Education Association’s data for the 2017-18 academic year, average public school teacher pay in West Virginia ranked 50th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Oklahoma ranked 49th and Arizona ranked 45th (Table II-2). Adjusting the nominal salaries for cost disparities across states, West Virginia placed 41st, Oklahoma 44th and Arizona 48th. Given that real teacher salaries had declined by 8% and 9% since 2009-10 in West Virginia and Arizona, respectively, the labor-management rubber band had stretched nearly to the breaking point. Consolidating The Macro Message Parties to negotiations derive leverage from the availability of substitutes. When alternative employment opportunities are prevalent, workers have a lot of leverage, because they can credibly threaten to avail themselves of them. Teaching is a skill that transfers easily, and every state has a public school system, so teachers in low-salary states have a wealth of ready alternatives. The converse is true for low-salary states; despite much warmer temperatures, it is unlikely that teachers from top-quintile states will be willing to take a 25-33% cost-of-living-adjusted pay cut to decamp to Arizona (Table II-3). Table II-3Cost Of Living-Adjusted Public School Teacher Salaries By State It is easy to see from Figure II-4 why management has had the upper hand. Economic concentration and the legal and regulatory climate have increasingly favored it for decades. The immediate future seems poised to favor labor, however, as the legal and regulatory climate cannot get materially better for employers, and the labor-management rubber band has become so stretched that some sort of mean reversion is inevitable. We have high conviction that labor’s one current advantage, a tight labor market, will remain in its column over the next year or two. On a forward-looking basis, the macro factors as a whole are poised to support labor. Figure II-4Macro Drivers Of Negotiating Leverage Takeaways (II) We think it is more likely than not that the labor movement in the United States will remain weak relative to its 1950s to 1970s heyday. We do think, however, that the probability that unions could rise up to exert the leverage that accrues to workers in a tight labor market is considerably larger than the great majority of investors perceive. Alpha – market-beating return – arises from surprises. An investor captures excess returns when s/he successfully anticipates something that the consensus does not. If the disparity involves a trivial outcome, then any excess return is likely to be trivial, but if the outcome is significant, the investor who zigged when the rest of the market zagged stands to separate him/herself from the pack. We think the outcome of a shift in leverage from employers to employees would be very large indeed. We would expect that aggregate wage gains of 4% or higher would quickly drive the Fed to impose restrictive monetary policy settings, eventually inducing the next recession and the end of the bull markets in equities, credit and property. A union revival may be a low-probability event, but it would have considerable impact on markets and the economy. Given our conviction that the probability, albeit low, is much greater than investors expect, we think the subject is well worth sustained attention. The Public-Approval Contest The last question to approach is how does labor or management win in the court of public opinion? Capturing Hearts And Minds Public opinion has shaped the outcomes of labor-management contests throughout US labor relations history. Labor was continually outgunned before the New Deal, coming up against private security forces, local police and/or the National Guard when they struck. Employers were able to turn to hired muscle, or request the deployment of public resources on their behalf, because the public had few qualms about using force to break strikes. College athletes were even pressed into service as strikebreakers after the turn of the century for what was viewed at the time as good, clean fun.10 Public opinion is not immutable, however, and by the time of the Flint sit-down strike, it had begun to shift in the direction of labor. The widespread misery of the Depression went a long way to overcoming Americans’ deep-seated suspicion of the labor movement and the fringe elements associated with it. Some employers were slow to pick up on the change in the public mood, however, and Ford’s security force thuggishly beat Walter Reuther and other UAW organizers while they oversaw the distribution of union leaflets outside a massive Ford plant just three months after Flint. Ford won the Battle of the Overpass, but its heavy-handed, retrograde tactics helped cost it the war. Reuther, who later led the UAW in its ‘50s and ‘60s golden age, was a master strategist with a knack for public relations. Writing the playbook later used to great effect by civil rights leaders, Reuther invited clergymen, Senate staffers and the press to accompany the largely female team of leafleteers. When the Ford heavies commenced beating the men, and roughly scattering the women, photographers were on hand to document it all.11 The photos helped unions capture public sympathy, just as televised images of dogs and fire hoses would later help secure passage of landmark civil rights legislation. Unions’ Fall From Grace Figure II-5Unions' 1980s Public Opinion Vortex Labor unions enjoyed their greatest public support in the mid-fifties, and largely maintained it well into the sixties, until rampant corruption and ties to organized crime undermined their public appeal. The shoddy quality of American autos further turned opinion against the UAW, the nation’s most prominent union, and a college football star named Brian Bosworth caused a mid-eighties furor by claiming that he had deliberately sought to prank new car buyers during his summer job on a Chevrolet assembly line. Bosworth later retracted the claim that GM workers had shown him how to insert stray bolts in inaccessible parts of car bodies to create a maddening mystery rattling, but the fact that so many Sports Illustrated readers found it credible eloquently testified to the UAW’s image problem. President Reagan accelerated the trend when he successfully stood up to the striking air traffic controllers, but his administration could not have taken such a hard line if unions hadn’t already been weakened by declining public support. Together, the public’s waning support for unions and the Reagan administration’s antipathy for them were powerfully self-reinforcing, and they fueled a vicious circle that powered four decades of union reversals (Figure II-5). As a prescient November 1981 Fortune report put it, “‘Managers are discovering that strikes can be broken, … and that strike-breaking (assuming it to be legal and nonviolent) doesn’t have to be a dirty word. In the long run, this new perception by business could turn out to be big news.’”12 Emboldened by the federal government’s replacement of the controllers, and the growing public perception that unions had devolved into an insular interest group driving the cost of living higher for everyone else, businesses began turning to permanent replacement workers to counter strikes.13 As an attorney that represented management in labor disputes told The New York Times in 1986, “If the President of the United States can replace [strikers], this must be socially acceptable, politically acceptable, and we can do it, also.”14 Labor’s New Face … Polling data indicate that unions have been recovering in the court of public opinion since the crisis, when the public presumably soured on them over the perception that the UAW was selfishly impeding the auto industry bailout. Their image got a boost in 2018 (Chart II-14), as striking red-state teachers embodied the shift from unions’ factory past to their service-provider present. “The teachers, many of them women, are redefining attitudes about organized labor, replacing negative stereotypes of overpaid and underperforming blue-collar workers with a more sympathetic face: overworked and underappreciated nurturers who say they’re fighting for their students as much as they’re fighting for themselves.”15 Chart II-14Feeling The Bern? Several commentators have heard organized labor’s death knell in US manufacturing’s irreversible decline. Unions gained critical mass on docks, factory floors, steel mills and coal mines, but few of today’s workers make their living there. Those who remain have little recourse other than to accept whatever terms management offers, as their jobs can easily be outsourced to lower-cost jurisdictions. The decline in private-sector union membership has traced the steady diminution of factory workers’ leverage (Chart II-15). Chart II-15Tracking Manufacturing's Slide Service workers represent unions’ future, and they have two important advantages over their manufacturing counterparts: many of their functions cannot be offshored, and a great deal of them are customer-facing. When MGM’s chairman was ousted from his job after clashing with Las Vegas’ potent UNITE-HERE local over the new MGM Grand Hotel’s nonunion policy, his successor explained why he immediately came to terms with the union. “‘The last thing you want is for people who are coming to enjoy themselves to see pickets and unhappy workers blocking driveways. … When you’re in the service business, the first contact our guests have is with the guest-room attendants or the food and beverage servers, and if that person’s [sic] unhappy, that comes across to the guests very quickly.’”16 … Management’s New Leaf … The Business Roundtable’s latest statement on corporate governance principles laid out a new stakeholder vision, displacing the Milton Friedman view that corporations are solely responsible for maximizing shareholder wealth. The statement itself is pretty bland, but the preamble in the press release accompanying it sounds as if it had been developed with labor advocates’ help (Box II-2). It is a stretch to think that the ideals in the Roundtable’s communications will take precedence over investment returns, but they may signal that management fears the labor-management rubber band has been stretched too far.17 The Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) movement has the potential to improve rank-and-file workers’ wages and working conditions. ESG proponents have steadily groused about outsized executive pay packages, but if asset owners and institutional investors were to begin pushing for higher entry-level pay to narrow the income-inequality gap, unions could gain some powerful allies. BOX II-2 Farewell, Milton Friedman   America’s economic model, which is based on freedom, liberty and other enduring principles of our democracy, has raised standards of living for generations, while promoting competition, consumer choice and innovation. America’s businesses have been a critical engine to its success. Yet we know that many Americans are struggling. Too often hard work is not rewarded, and not enough is being done for workers to adjust to the rapid pace of change in the economy. If companies fail to recognize that the success of our system is dependent on inclusive long-term growth, many will raise legitimate questions about the role of large employers in our society. With these concerns in mind, Business Roundtable is modernizing its principles on the role of a corporation. Since 1978, Business Roundtable has periodically issued Principles of Corporate Governance that include language on the purpose of a corporation. Each version of that document issued since 1997 has stated that corporations exist principally to serve their shareholders. It has become clear that this language on corporate purpose does not accurately describe the ways in which we and our fellow CEOs endeavor every day to create value for all our stakeholders, whose long-term interests are inseparable. We therefore provide the following Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation, which supersedes previous Business Roundtable statements and more accurately reflects our commitment to a free market economy that serves all Americans. This statement represents only one element of Business Roundtable’s work to ensure more inclusive prosperity, and we are continuing to challenge ourselves to do more. Just as we are committed to doing our part as corporate CEOs, we call on others to do their part as well. In particular, we urge leading investors to support companies that build long-term value by investing in their employees and communities. … And The Public’s Left Turn Chart II-16Help! As our Geopolitical Strategy colleagues have argued since the 2016 primaries, the median voter in the US has been moving to the left as the financial crisis, the hollowing out of the middle class and the widening wealth gap have dimmed the luster of Reagan-Thatcher free-market policies.18 Globalization has squeezed unskilled labor everywhere in the developed world, and white-collar workers are starting to look over their shoulders at artificial intelligence programs that may render them obsolete as surely as voice mail and word processing decimated secretaries and typists. Banding together hasn’t sounded so good since the Depression, and nearly half of all workers polled in 2017 said they would join a union if they could (Chart II-16). Millennials are poised to become the single biggest voting bloc in the country. They were born between 1981 and 1996, and their lives have spanned two equity market crashes, the September 11th attacks, and the financial crisis, instilling them with a keen awareness of the way that remote events can upend the best-laid plans. Many of them emerged from college with sizable debt and dim earnings prospects. They would welcome more government involvement in the economy, and their enthusiastic embrace of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (Chart II-17) indicates they’re on unions’ side. Chart II-17No 'Third Way' For Millennials Elections Have (Considerable Regulatory) Consequences Electoral outcomes influence the division of the economic pie between employers and employees. Labor-friendly presidents, governors and legislatures are more likely to expand employee protections, while more vigilantly enforcing the employment laws and regulations that are already on the books. The White House appoints top leadership at the Labor Department, the National Labor Review Board (NLRB), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), along with the attorney general, who dictates the effort devoted to anti-trust enforcement. The differences can be stark. Justice Scalia’s son would no more have led the Obama Department of Labor than Scott Pruitt (EPA), Wilbur Ross (Commerce) or Betsy Devos (Education) would have found employment anywhere in the Obama administration. McDonald’s has good reason to be happy with the outcome of the 2016 election; its business before the NLRB wound up being resolved much more favorably in 2019 than it would have been when it began in 2014 (Box II-3). At the state level, Wisconsin public employees suffered a previously unimaginable setback when Scott Walker won the 2010 gubernatorial election, along with sizable legislative majorities (Box II-4). BOX II-3 The Right Referee Makes All The Difference The Fight for $15 movement that began in 2012 aimed to nearly double the median fast-food worker’s wages. A raise of that magnitude would pose an existential threat to fast-food’s business model, and McDonald’s and its franchisees sought to stymie the movement’s momentum. The NLRB opened an investigation in 2014 following allegations that employees were fired for participating in organizing activities. McDonald’s vigorously contested the case in an effort to avoid the joint-employer designation that would open the door for franchise employees to bargain collectively with the parent company. (Absent a joint-employer ruling, a union would have to organize the McDonald’s work force one franchise at a time.) When the case was decided in McDonald’s favor in December, the headline and sub-header on the Bloomberg story reporting the outcome crystallized our elections-matter thesis: McDonald’s Gets Win Under Trump That Proved Elusive With Obama Board led by Trump appointees overrules judge in case that threatened business model BOX II-4 Wisconsin Guts Public-Sector Unions Soon after Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker took office in January 2011, backed by sizable Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature, he sent a bill to legislators that would cripple the state’s public-sector unions. Protestors swarmed Madison and filled the capitol building every day for a month to contest the bill, and Democratic legislators fled the state to forestall a vote, but it eventually passed nonetheless. The bill struck at a rare union success story; nearly one-third of public-sector employees are union members and that ratio has remained fairly steady over the last 40 years (Chart II-18). Wisconsin’s public-sector unions now do little more than advocate for their members in disciplinary and grievance proceedings, and overall union membership in the state has fallen by a whopping 43% since the end of 2009. Judicial appointments make a difference, too. The Supreme Court’s Janus decision in April 2018, banning any requirement that public employees pay dues to the unions that bargain for them on not-so-readily-apparent First Amendment grounds,19 was widely viewed as a body blow to public-sector unions. The 5-4 decision would certainly have gone the other way had President Obama’s nominee to succeed the late Justice Scalia been confirmed by the Senate. Chart II-18Public-Sector Union Membership Has Held Up Well Final Takeaways We do not anticipate that organized labor will regain the position it enjoyed in the fifties and sixties, when global competition was weak and shareholders and consumers were anything but vigilant about corporate operations. Even a more modest flexing of labor muscle that pushes wages higher across the entire economy has a probability of less than one half. Investors seem to think the probability is negligible, though, and therein lies an opportunity. Elected officials deliver what their constituents want, as do the courts, albeit with a longer lag. Society’s view of striking/strikebreaking tactics heavily influences how they’re deployed and whether or not they’ll be successful. We believe that public opinion is beginning to coalesce on employees’ side as labor puts on a more appealing face; as businesses increasingly fret about inequality’s consequences; and as millennials swoon over progressives, undeterred by labels that would have left their Cold War ancestors reaching for weapons. The median voter theory has importance beyond predicting future outcomes; it directly influences them. As the center of the electorate leans to the left, elected officials will have to deliver more liberal outcomes if they want to keep their jobs. If the electorate has given up on Reagan-Thatcher principles, organized labor is bound to get a break from the four-decade onslaught that has left it shrunken and feeble. There is one overriding market takeaway from our view that a labor recovery is more likely than investors realize: long-run inflation expectations are way too low. Although we do not expect wage growth to rise enough this year to give rise to sustainable upward inflation pressures that force the Fed to come off of the sidelines, we do think investors are overly complacent about inflation. We continue to advocate for below-benchmark duration positioning over a cyclical timeframe and for owning TIPS in place of longer-maturity Treasury bonds over all timeframes. Watch the election, as it may reveal that labor’s demise has been greatly exaggerated. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist Bibliography Aamidor, Abe and Evanoff, Ted. At The Crossroads: Middle America and the Battle to Save the Car Industry. Toronto: ECW Press (2010). Allegretto, S.A.; Doussard, M.; Graham-Squire, D.; Jacobs, K.; Thompson, D.; and Thompson, J. Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry. Berkeley, CA. UC-Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, October 2013. Bernstein, Irving. The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920-1933. Boston: Houghton Mifflin (1960). Blanc, Eric. Red State Revolt: The Teachers’ Strike Wave and Working-Class Politics. Brooklyn, NY: Verso (2019). Emma, Caitlin. “Teachers Are Going on Strike in Trump’s America.” Politico, April 12, 2018, accessed January 20, 2020. Finnegan, William. “Dignity: Fast-Food Workers and a New Form of Labor Activism.” The New Yorker, September 15, 2014 Greenhouse, Steven. Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present and Future of American Labor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf (2019). Greenhouse, Steven. “The Return of the Strike.” The American Prospect, Winter 2019 Ingrassia, Paul. Crash Course: The American Auto Industry’s Road from Glory to Disaster. New York: Random House (2010). King, Gilbert. “How the Ford Motor Company Won a Battle and Lost Ground.” smithsonianmag.com, April 30, 2013, accessed January 24, 2020. Loomis, Erik. A History of America in Ten Strikes. New York: The New Press (2018). Manchester, William. The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972. New York: Bantam (1974). Norwood, Stephen H. “The Student As Strikebreaker: College Youth and the Crisis of Masculinity in the Early Twentieth Century. Journal of Social History Winter 1994: pp. 331-49. Sears, Stephen W. “Shut the Goddam Plant!” American Heritage Volume 33, Issue 3 (April/May 1982) Serrin, William. “Industries, in Shift, Aren’t Letting Strikes Stop Them.” The New York Times, September 30, 1986 Wolff, Leon. “Battle at Homestead.” American Heritage Volume 16, Issue 3 (April 1965) *Current newspaper and Bloomberg articles omitted. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we warned that the S&P 500 rally looked increasingly vulnerable from a tactical perspective and that the spread of Covid-19 was likely to be the catalyst of a pullback that could cause the S&P 500 to retest its October 2019 breakout. Since then, the S&P 500 has corrected significantly. As long as new cases of Covid-19 continue to grow quickly outside of China, the S&P 500 can suffer additional downside. Limited inflationary pressures, accommodative global central banks, and the potential for a large policy easing in China suggest that stocks have significant upside once Covid-19 becomes better contained. Nonetheless, despite the positive signals from our Willingness-To-Pay measure or our Monetary and Composite Technical Indicators, we recommend a cautious tactical stance on equities. Our BCA Composite Valuation index is not depressed enough to warrant closing our eyes when the risk of a recession caused by a global pandemic remains as high as it is today. Either valuations will have to cheapen further or Covid-19 will have to be clearly contained before we buy stocks without strong fears. 10-year Treasurys yields remain extremely expensive. However, our Composite Technical Indicator suggests that in such an uncertain climate, yields can fall a little more. Nonetheless, Treasurys seem like an asset that has nearly fully priced in the full impact of Covid-19, and thus, any downside in yield will be very limited.  The rising risk premia linked to the coronavirus is also helping the dollar right now, but as we have highlighted before, many signs show that global growth was in the process of bottoming before the outbreak took hold. As a result, we anticipate that the dollar could suffer plentiful downside if Covid-19 passes soon. Moreover, the rising probability that Senator Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination could hurt the greenback over the remainder of the year. Finally, commodity prices have corrected meaningfully in response to the stronger dollar and the growth fears created by the spread of Covid-19. However, they have not pullback below the levels where they traded when they broke out in late 2019. Moreover, the advanced/decline line of the Continuous Commodity Index remains at an elevated level, indicating underlying strength in the commodity complex. Natural resources prices will likely become the key beneficiaries of both the eventual pullback in virus-related fears and the weaker dollar. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Non-seasonally adjusted growth is always negative in Q1, due to the impact of the Chinese Lunar New Year Celebration. This is why we emphasize the seasonal adjustment. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus," dated February 21, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "February 2020," dated January 30, 2020 available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Blanc, Eric. Red State Revolt: The Teachers’ Strike Wave and Working-Class Politics, Verso: New York (2019), p. 204. 5 Ibid, p. 209. 6 We will discuss public opinion, and its impact on elected officials and courts, in Part 3. 7 Please see the January 13, 2020 US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Labor Strikes Back, Part 1: An Investor’s Guide To US Labor History,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 8 A monopsony is a market with a single buyer, akin to a monopoly, which is a market with only one seller. 9 Please see the July 2019 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “ The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient,” available at bcaresearch.com. 10 Students were excused from classes and exams and sometimes even received academic credit for their work. 11 King, Gilbert, “How The Ford Motor Company Won a Battle and Lost Ground,” Smithsonian.com, April 30, 2013. 12 Greenhouse, Steven, Beaten Down, Worked Up, Alfred A. Knopf: New York (2019), pp. 137-8. 13 High unemployment, in addition to declining respect for unions, helped erase the stigma of crossing picket lines. 14 Serrin, William, “Industries, in Shift, Aren’t Letting Strikes Stop Them,” New York Times, September 30, 1986, p. A18. 15 Emma, Caitlin, “Teachers Are Going on Strike in Trump’s America,” Politico, April 12, 2018. 16 Greenhouse, p. 44. 17 Please see the January 20, 2020 US Investment Strategy Special Report, “Labor Strikes Back, Part 2: Where Strikes Come From And Who Wins Them,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see the June 8, 2016 Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, “Introducing The Median Voter Theory,” available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 The Court found for the plaintiff in Janus, who bridled at the closed-shop law that forced him to join the union that bargained on his and his colleagues’ behalf, because the union’s espousal of views with which he disagreed constituted a violation of his free-speech rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Highlights For stock markets, the best inoculation against Covid-19 is ultra-low bond yields. Our tactical underweight to equities versus bonds achieved its 5 percent profit target and is now closed. We are now awaiting the fractal signal to go tactically overweight (Chart of the Week). Price to sales is a much better predictor of 10-year returns than is price to earnings, especially when profit margins are stretched as they are now. New long-term recommendation: overweight Swedish equities versus bonds. Germany and Switzerland also offer attractive excess 10-year equity returns over bonds. Fractal trade: the 130 percent outperformance of palladium versus nickel in just six months is now technically stretched. Chart of the WeekStocks Are Approaching Oversold – Stay Tuned For Stock Markets, The Best Inoculation Against Covid-19 Is Ultra-Low Bond Yields A global slowdown, exacerbated by the Covid-19 virus contagion, is dominating the news and financial headlines. There are worries that the stock market is still in denial and has a long way to fall – rather like Wile E. Coyote suspended in disbelief as he runs over the cliff-edge. In fact, some of the most economically sensitive equity sectors have already fallen a long way. For example, the oil and gas sector is down by 20 percent (Chart 2). Chart I-2Economically Sensitive Sectors And Bond Yields Have Plunged Meanwhile, bond yields have plunged to new lows, and in some cases all-time lows. Hence, we are pleased to report that our tactical underweight to equities versus 10-year bonds, initiated on January 9, has achieved its 5 percent profit target and is now closed.1 We are now awaiting the fractal signal to go tactically overweight. Bond yields have plunged to new lows. Having said that, when the world economy is set to grind to a halt in the first quarter, and halfway to a recession, is a 5 percent underperformance of equities versus bonds enough? There is certainly scope for some further downside, but for investors with a multi-year horizon, equities still win the ugly contest versus bonds. Where bond yields are approaching the lower limit to their yields – around -1 percent – it means they are approaching the upper limit to their prices. Hence, bonds become a ‘lose-lose’ proposition. Bond prices cannot rise much further, even in an economic slump, but they can fall a lot if sentiment suddenly recovers. As the riskiness of bonds rises relative to equities, the prospective return that investors will accept from equities rapidly collapses to the ultra-low level of bond yields. And as valuation is just the inverse of prospective return, this underpins and justifies an exponentially higher valuation of equities. How can we best gauge the prospective (long-term) returns that equities now offer? To answer this question, we need to take a Japanese lesson. A Japanese Lesson: Price To Sales Is The Best Predictor Of Prospective Return A great advantage of being a European investor is that the difficult investment questions have already been asked and answered by our friends in Japan – so we just need to take some Japanese lessons. One of the most important lessons is that the Japanese stock market’s price to sales multiple has a near-perfect predictive record for Japanese 10-year returns since the 1980s.2 For world equities, market capitalisation to GDP (which broadly equates to price to sales at a world level) also has a near-perfect predictive record for 10-year returns since the late 1990s.3 The corollary lesson is that the price to earnings multiple – either based on 12-month trailing or 12-month forward earnings – is not such a good predictor of prospective return. Price to earnings wrongly pinpointed Japan’s highest valuation in 1994 rather than at the peak of the bubble in 1989. Moreover, since 2000, price to earnings has suggested that Japan’s stock market is cheaper than it truly is, and grossly overestimated prospective returns. Price to earnings made the same mistake for world equities in the mid-noughties, understating valuations and thereby overestimating prospective returns. The trouble with price to earnings is that it takes no account of the likely evolution of profit margins – treating a stock market multiple of, say, 30 on a high profit margin the same as 30 on a low profit margin. The problem is that when the market is trading at 30 on a low margin it has the capacity for higher profit growth through margin expansion – and thereby a higher prospective return – than when it is trading at 30 on a high margin (Chart 3). Chart I-3Price To Earnings Takes No Account Of Changing Profit Margins It follows that a high price to earnings on a low profit margin makes the market appear more expensive than it truly is, and thereby underestimates prospective returns. In 1994, Japan appeared to be more expensive than at the peak of the bubble in 1989 because profit margins halved through 1989-94. The trouble with price to earnings is that it takes no account of the likely evolution of profit margins. Conversely, a low price to earnings on a high profit margin makes the market appear less expensive that it truly is, and thereby overestimates prospective returns (Chart 4 and Chart 5). Chart I-4Price To Sales Has An Excellent Predictive Record In Japan… Chart I-5…Whereas Price To Earnings Has Made Many Mistakes   In the mid-noughties, Japan appeared to be less expensive than it truly was because profit margins surged through 2001-07. The same was true for world equities. Hence, price to earnings grossly overestimated the prospective long-term return in 2007 (Chart 6). Chart I-6Profit Margins Are At Generational Highs Price to sales avoids the mistakes of price to earnings by removing profit margins from the equation. Put another way, it is like using price to earnings with a constant long-term profit margin. This tends to be more prudent – especially today when margins are close to generational highs and facing several threats in the coming years. One threat to profit margins comes from a growing populist backlash against record high corporate profitability, especially in the most profitable sectors. The threat manifests through populist politicians or parties which vow to rein in runaway profitability through higher taxes and/or regulation and/or nationalisation. Think Bernie Sanders. A second threat comes from environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG). Think carbon taxes. A third threat comes the possible break-up of the pseudo-monopoly tech behemoths, killing both their pricing power and market penetration. Think antitrust suit against Google or Facebook. Admittedly, this is likely to be a US focussed threat, but the impact on stock markets would be felt worldwide. Given these threats, long-term investors should assume some pressure on profit margins from today’s generational highs. Accordingly, just as in 2007, price to sales is likely to be a much better predictor of prospective returns than is price to earnings (Chart 7 and Chart 8). Chart I-7At A World Level, Market Cap To GDP Has An Excellent Predictive Record… Chart I-8…Whereas Price To Earnings Was Very Wrong In 2007 Sweden Is An Attractive Long-Term Opportunity Price to sales predicts that stock markets, on average, are set to deliver feeble single-digit total nominal returns over the coming decade. Nevertheless, with bond yields even closer to zero, and the riskiness of bonds much higher at ultra-low yields, equities still beat bonds in the ugly contest of long-term prospective returns. In fact, in those countries where bond yields are approaching their lower limit of around -1 percent – meaning bond prices are approaching their upper limit – equities win the contest more handsomely. On this basis, the stock markets in Germany and Switzerland offer attractive excess 10-year returns over their bond markets. But the most attractive long-term opportunity is Sweden. Based on its price to sales multiple, Sweden’s stock market is set to deliver around 6 percent a year over the coming decade (Chart 9). Chart I-9Sweden’s Stock Market Is Set To Deliver 6 Percent A Year Given that Sweden’s 10-year bond yield is negative, Sweden’s stock market takes the honour of offering one of the world’s highest excess 10-year returns over its bond market (Chart 10). Chart I-10Sweden’s Stock Market Has The Highest Excess Return Over Bonds Accordingly, we are adding Sweden to our existing structural overweight to equities versus long-dated bonds in Germany, in a 50:50 combination. Fractal Trading System* As discussed, we are pleased to report that underweight S&P 500 versus the 10-year T-bond achieved its 5 percent profit target and is now closed. Elsewhere, the palladium price has surged. In just six months, palladium has outperformed nickel by 130 percent, making its 130-day fractal structure extremely fragile. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short palladium versus nickel, setting a profit target of 32 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 60 percent. When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Our expression of this was underweight S&P 500 versus US 10-year T-bond. 2 Prospective returns are nominal total (capital plus income) 10-year returns, shown as an annualised rate. 3 Price/sales per share = (price*number of shares)/(sales per share * number of shares) = market capitalisation/total sales. At a global level, total sales broadly equal GDP, so price/sales per share = market capitalisation/GDP. But note that this does not apply at a regional or country level because sales can originate from outside the domestic economy.. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Dear Client, This week, we had originally planned to publish a Special Report introducing a framework for modeling and selecting global yield curve trades. In light of the market turbulence of the past few days, however, we felt the need to provide a short note updating our current thoughts on the expanding threats to the global economy and financial markets from the coronavirus (a.k.a. 2019-nCoV, COVID-19). Thus, this week, you will be receiving two reports from BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy. Kind regards, Robert Robis Feature The news of more occurrences of the COVID-19 virus in countries outside China – South Korea, Italy, Iran, and Israel – has created a new wave of fear among investors who had started to see signs that the spread of the virus was losing some momentum in China. The appearance of COVID-19 infections in countries like Italy, where there was no obvious connection to the epicenter in China, raised new concerns that the outbreak could turn into a true global pandemic that would be a major negative shock to global growth. The latest market moves fit the profile of a major risk-off move driven by higher uncertainty. Global equities have sold off sharply over the past two trading sessions, and volatility measures like the VIX have spiked. The 10-year US Treasury yield reached a new all-time low (on an intraday basis) of 1.35% yesterday, leaving it -18bps below the 3-month US Treasury bill rate. That curve inversion has occurred alongside falling TIPS breakevens and rising expectations of Fed rate cuts in 2020, in a familiar parallel to the “tariff war shock” of 2019 that prompted the Fed to lower the funds rate by a cumulative 75bps. We see some similarities today to a more recent “black swan” event: the June 2016 UK Brexit vote, which was when the previous intraday all-time low in US Treasury yields was reached. Yield movements have been somewhat smaller in other countries where yields were already very low to begin with, like the 10-year German bund reaching -0.49% and 10-year UK Gilt hitting 0.54% yesterday. Global credit markets have also underperformed, with corporate bond spreads widening alongside spiking equity market volatility in the US and Europe. Amidst the fear, investors have been searching for a potential roadmap to follow, for economies and financial markets, based on past viral outbreaks like the 2003 SARS epidemic and the 2009 global swine flu (H1N1) pandemic. We see some similarities today to a more recent “black swan” event: the June 2016 UK Brexit vote, which was when the previous intraday all-time low for US Treasury yields was reached. After that stunning electoral outcome, investors worldwide tried to process the potential negative implications of an unexpected political outcome. Risk assets sold off and government bonds rallied sharply. Global policymakers responded with various easing measures, both direct (rate cuts and fresh QE from the Bank of England) and indirect (delayed Fed rate hikes, more QE from the ECB). This all came at a time when global growth momentum was already picking up before the Brexit vote, stoked by large-scale fiscal and monetary stimulus in China (Chart 1). In the end, the supportive monetary/fiscal backdrop, and not the political uncertainty, won out and the global economy – along with risk assets and bond yields – all recovered over the second half of 2016. Chart 1Doomsday? Or 2016 Revisited? Today, policymakers are starting to mobilize to fight the threat to growth from COVID-19, hinting at potential monetary easing measures. China is already set to deliver more monetary and fiscal easing, although it is not clear if those will be on the same massive scale as 2015/16. While the scale of the shock to global growth from a potential pandemic is obviously far different than the political uncertainty of Brexit, stimulus measures in 2020 could generate a similar positive response from financial markets if the coronavirus impacts growth less than currently feared. So what should investors expect next? We admit that we do not have a strong conviction level on near-term market moves, given how the coronavirus outbreak has set off an unpredictable chain of events that has gone against our base case expectation of a global growth rebound in 2020. Yet amidst all the uncertainty and fear, we can hazard a few guesses as to the potential future moves in global bond markets. For riskier borrowers, the ability to service debt is what matters most, and the majority of borrowers can still meet their interest payments with global borrowing costs near all-time lows. DURATION: A lot of bad news is discounted in current global bond yield levels, both in terms of absolute levels and expected rate cuts. Yet until there are signs of the virus being contained, both within and outside China, investors will continue to seek out hedges for the uncertainty. That means the any challenge to the current downward momentum in yields may not become evident until the economic data releases begin to show signs of a Q2 recovery from what is assuredly going to be an awful Q1 for the global economy. YIELD CURVE: A continuation of the risk-off momentum in global equity markets will put additional bull-flattening pressure on developed market government bond yield curves in the near term. The more medium-term move, however, should be towards steeper yield curves. Either the viral outbreak becomes contained and/or the growth shock is minimized, triggering a reversal of the latest risk-off bull flattening into risk-on bear-steepening; or the economic downturn and risk asset selloff intensifies and central banks deliver rate cuts that will bull-steepen global yield curves. CREDIT: Global corporate bond spreads should remain under upward pressure in the near term until the spread of the coronavirus outbreak begins to ease. However, the cumulative spread widening in credit markets could turn out to be surprisingly modest. The conditions that are typically in place before credit bear markets and periods of sustained spread widening – tight monetary policy and rapidly deteriorating corporate financial health – are not currently in place. This is true in both the US and Europe for high-yield, where our bottom-up Corporate Health Monitors are still sending a neutral message – thanks largely to interest coverage ratios that are still above typical pre-recessionary levels (Chart 2). For riskier borrowers, the ability to service debt is what matters most, and the majority of borrowers can still meet their interest payments with global borrowing costs near all-time lows - even in the event of a sharp, but short, global economic slowdown. Chart 2Low Yields Supporting High-Yield Borrowers   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com  

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

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

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

Highlights The breakout in the DXY indicates the investment universe could become precarious. The euro could fall to 1.04 on such an outcome. The yen and Swiss franc should outperform in this environment, barring recent weakness in the Japanese currency. This will catalyze the Swiss National Bank to start weaponizing its currency. EUR/CHF could first undershoot 1.06 but will then become very attractive. We were stopped out of long AUD/CAD for a loss of 3%. Weighing In On Recent Market Developments The rally in the dollar has been broad-based, with the DXY index threatening to break above 100. What is peculiar about this rally is that it is not driven by relative fundamentals, but rather by sentiment. For example, interest rate differentials across much of the developed world have risen versus the dollar, in stark contrast  with the drop in their exchange rates (Chart I-1). The risk is that as a momentum currency, the surge in the dollar triggers a negative feedback loop that tightens financial conditions in emerging markets, curtailing a key source of global demand (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Dollar Up, Rate Differentials Down Chart I-2A Strong Dollar Could Lead To Debt Deflation The most recent TIC data from the US Treasury confirmed that inflows into domestic bonds have surged, especially driven by private concerns. These inflows have been huge enough to alter the structural downtrend of outflows (Chart I-3). Given that hedged yields are currently unattractive for non-US investors, these flows are also a bet on an appreciating dollar. This fits anecdotal evidence that today’s sharp drop in the yen was driven by private investors, stampeding out of the local market, into the safety of US Treasurys and other assets. Chart I-3Positive Momentum Into US Treasurys We have elaborated in numerous reports why the risks to the dollar are to the downside, including expensive valuation and lopsided positioning. However, these obstacles fall to the wayside in a risk-off environment. As such, for risk management purposes, we are closing our short DXY position today for a loss of 2.5%. Bottom Line: The breakout in the dollar is at risk of becoming self-reinforcing in the near term. Stand aside on the DXY for now. Thought Experiment On A Few Scenarios Different market participants have taken different views on the durability and potential impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Equity market indices in general are looking through a potential blip in the Q1 data on the assumption that the Q2 recovery will be V-shaped and powerful. The peak in momentum of new cases outside of Hubei province as well as a less-alarming death rate compared with the SARS episode certainly supports this view (Chart I-4). Chart I-4ACases Outside The Epicenter Have Peaked For Now Chart I-4BCases Outside The Epicenter Have Peaked For Now The disconnect has been in the dismal performance of procyclical currencies. SEK/JPY, a key barometer of greed versus fear in financial markets, is near capitulation lows, despite secular highs for the stock-to-bond ratio (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, the EUR/USD has once again begun to inflect lower, continuing a trend in place since the beginning of 2018. Chart I-5Pro-Cyclical Crosses Are Pricing A Malignant Outcome This suggests one of three outcomes: Equity markets are correct to price in a benign scenario, with an eventual synchronized growth recovery led by the US (Chart I-6A). This is dollar bullish. Currency markets are right to be pricing in a catastrophic fallout in growth, with anything linked to China/global growth getting slaughtered. This is also dollar bullish. The bond markets are spot on in pricing in a goldilocks scenario, where rates stay low and non-US markets lead an eventual recovery (Chart I-6B). This is dollar bearish. Chart I-6AEquity Markets Are Pricing A Benign Outcome Chart I-6BEquity Markets Are Pricing A Benign Outcome Bottom Line: Two of three scenarios lead to a higher US dollar. For most developed market participants, the adjustment towards a higher dollar would have to occur through a lower euro, given its weight in the DXY index. How Low Could The EUR/USD Fall? The possibility of either a synchronized recovery led by the US or a catastrophic fallout to growth is certainly valid for the euro area. Chart I-7 plots relative GDP growth between the two regions. The conclusion is very evident: The collapse in the euro since the financial crisis has been driven by falling growth differentials between the Eurozone and the US. Based on higher-frequency indicators, this remains the case as of January – the ZEW survey showed that the expectations component for euro area activity slowed markedly, while that of the US improved. In the absence of a synchronized pickup in global growth, a weaker exchange rate helps.  One way to arrest the rising growth divergence between the euro area and the US is to lower the cost of capital in the entire Eurozone, such that it makes sense even for the less-productive peripheral countries to borrow and invest. This will boost productivity, lifting the neutral rate. This has certainly been the case. Bond yields in peripheral Europe are collapsing relative to those in Germany. And, as expected, investment spending in the periphery is also picking up, which should close the productivity gap with the core countries (Chart I-8). Unfortunately, for the small, open countries that characterize the euro area, external demand is also needed to transform those productivity gains into profits Chart I-7Weak Growth Will Pressure ##br##The Euro Chart I-8Investment Spending Was Strong Going Into The Crisis In the absence of a synchronized pickup in global growth, a weaker exchange rate helps. Our intermediate-term timing model, which has been back-tested as a tool for profitably hedging portfolios, suggests the euro is cheap, but not excessively so. Medium-term bottoms have usually occurred when the euro is around 5% cheaper than current levels, or around 1.03-1.04 (Chart I-9). Since the peak in global trade in 2011, one of the few ways for countries to expand their trade pie has been via a “beggar thy neighbor” policy. This is even more important for the euro area, if the Phase One trade deal between the US and China results in less purchases of European machinery, cars, and aircraft. Coupled with a hiccup in Chinese growth in Q1, the euro will have to be the mechanism of adjustment. The European Central Bank has one powerful tool to ensure this occurs: quantitative easing. By crowding out locals from the domestic fixed-income market, investors will have to flock to either equities or foreign securities. This will weigh on the euro. This is especially the case since quantitative easing from the ECB is open-ended, while that from the Federal Reserve (not-QE) is not. Eventually, investors might begin to front-run the relative expansion in the ECB’s balance sheet. Since the peak in global trade in 2011, one of the few ways for countries to expand their trade pie has been via a “beggar thy neighbor” policy.  Chart I-10 shows that a rising basic balance in the euro area has been a key mechanism in preventing a further drop in the euro. This will change in the case of a catastrophic fallout to growth. Chart I-9The Euro Is Cheap, But Not A ##br##Screaming Buy Chart I-10A Positive Basic Balance Has Prevented A Much Lower Adjustment Eventually, all trends reverse, and there will be a pickup in growth, led by more growth-sensitive economies. Given both the internal and exchange rate adjustments in the euro area, the common-currency zone will be primed to benefit. The euro tends to be largely driven by pro-cyclical flows, and European equities, especially those in the periphery, are already trading at some of the cheapest cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings multiples in the developed world. Watch earnings revisions for euro zone equities versus the US. They tend to firmly lead the euro by about 9-to-12 months (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Watch Earnings Revisions For The Next EUR/USD Move Bottom Line: There is near-term downside to the EUR/USD towards 1.03. The SNB And The Franc The franc has been in a bull market against pretty much every European currency since the onset of the global growth slowdown, with the latest developments only supercharging that trend. The worst-case scenario for Switzerland is a global growth fallout, since the valuation starting point for the franc is expensive, not only vis-à-vis the euro (Chart I-12), but even more so against the Swedish krona and  Norwegian krone. So, the key question for the franc is the pain threshold for the SNB to step up intervention. Chart I-12The Franc Is Getting Incrementally Expensive The first mandate of the Swiss National Bank is price stability, consistent with inflation at 2%. On this front, it has clearly underdelivered. The central bank expects inflation to gradually pick up to 1.2% by 2023, but the backdrop for prices in Switzerland has been sub-1% for much of the post-crisis period (Chart I-13). Meanwhile, as a small, open economy, tradeable goods prices are important for domestic inflation, and import prices are deflating by over 1.9% year-on-year, in part driven by a strong currency (Chart I-14). If left unchecked, this could begin to un-anchor inflation expectations, leading to a negative feedback loop that the SNB will likely find very difficult to lean against. Chart I-13SNB Forecasts May Not Be Realized Soon Chart I-14The Risk From A Strong Franc Is Deflation Domestically, the Swiss economy was holding up well, but it is now an open question as to how much longer it can continue to defy the pull of a slowing external sector. As a highly export-driven country, the manufacturing sector usually dictates trends in the overall Swiss economy (Chart I-15). Sentiment indicators such as the ZEW expectations component were perking up ahead of the onset of COVID-19. It is now a sure bet that these will relapse in the coming months. More importantly, the impact on Switzerland might be bigger relative to its trading competitors, given the expensive franc. It is now an open question as to how much longer Switzerland can continue to defy the pull of a slowing external sector.  A key barometer for the SNB will be exports. Export volumes are already deflating (Chart I-16), yet the trade balance is still benefiting from the large share of precious metals exports, which are currently experiencing a terms-of-trade boost. This will not last forever, given the falling market share of precious metals in the Swiss trade balance Chart I-15How Long Can Employment Defy Gravity Chart I-16A Lower Franc Will Support Export Volumes There is a new twist for “operation weak franc.” The US Treasury department has put Switzerland on the currency-manipulator watch list. In general, the SNB is reticent on the issue of currency intervention, stating only that it intervenes to counteract negative effects on inflation and exports from an overly expensive franc. But it is encouraging that sight deposits at local banks started to accelerate at USD/CHF 0.96 (Chart I-17) and the SNB is also likely to act if EUR/CHF meaningfully breaks below 1.06. Economically, the SNB has to walk a fine line between a predominantly deflationary backdrop in Switzerland and a rising debt-to-GDP ratio that pins it among the highest in the G10. The good news is that a lot of the imbalances resulting from excess liquidity in recent years are being addressed. The housing market is a case in point. Growth in rental housing units, which usually constitute the bulk of investment homes, is deflating, which contrasts favorably with growth in owner-occupied homes (Chart I-18). Macro prudential measures such as a cap on second homes as well as stricter lending standards have helped. Meanwhile, a slowdown in the working-age population in Switzerland has neutered a meaningful source of demand. Chart I-17The SNB Is Stepping Up Intervention Chart I-18A Healthy Housing Adjustment     Bottom Line: We are lowering our limit-buy on EUR/CHF to 1.05 to account for a potential undershoot. Housekeeping We were stopped out of our long AUD/CAD trade for a loss of 3.0%. As highlighted above, currency markets are beginning to price in a malignant scenario for global growth, where anything non-US gets decimated. In such an environment, the best policy is to stand aside.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been mostly positive: Retail Sales excluding autos grew by 0.3% month-on-month compared to 0.2% in January. Industrial production contracted further by 0.3% month-on-month in January. The Michigan consumer sentiment index increased to 100.9 from 99.8 in February. The core producer price index grew by 1.7% in January, from 1.1% in December. Housing starts decreased to 1.57 million from 1.63 million, while building permits increased to 1.55 million from 1.42 million in December. The DXY index appreciated by 0.8% this week. As a momentum currency, the rise could become self-reinforcing. Stand aside on DXY. Report Links: Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been negative: The trade balance increased to EUR 22.2 billion, on a seasonally adjusted basis, from EUR 19.1 billion in December. GDP grew by 0.9% year-on-year in Q4 2019, slowing from 1.2% the previous quarter. ZEW economic sentiment declined to 10.4 from 25.6 in February. The current account surplus decreased to EUR 32.6 billion from 35.2 billion in December. Construction output contracted by 3.7% year-on-year in December, from growth of 1.4% the previous month. The euro depreciated by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. The disappointing ZEW numbers for the Eurozone and Germany and concerns about persistently low growth were a major headwind for the euro this week. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been negative: GDP contracted by 1.6% quarter-on-quarter in Q4 2019, compared to growth of 0.4% the previous quarter. Industrial production contracted by 3.1% year-on-year in December. Capacity utilization decreased to -0.4% in December. The merchandise trade balance fell to a deficit of JPY 224.1 billion in January. Machinery orders contracted by 3.5% year-on-year in December. Imports contracted by 3.6% and exports contracted by 2.6% year-on-year in January. The Japanese yen depreciated by 1.9% against the US dollar this week. Domestic data was very disappointing, with GDP contracting more than expected. Meanwhile technical factors such as portfolio flows were also responsible. That said, short USD/JPY remains cheap insurance. Report Links: Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been mixed: The Rightmove house price index grew by 2.9% year-on-year in February. The ILO unemployment rate remained flat at 3.8% in December. The growth in average earnings including bonuses slowed to 2.9% from 3.8% in December. The CPI grew by 1.8% while the retail price index grew by 2.7% year-on-year in January. Retail sales grew by 0.8% year-on-year in January. The British pound depreciated by 1.3% against the US dollar this week. The key worry for incoming BoE governor Andrew Bailey is a stagflationary environment, with increases in inflation driven by weak business investment and productivity growth. Stand aside on GBP for now. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been negative: The six month annualized growth rate in the Westpac leading index fell to -0.46% from -0.28% in January. The wage price index grew by 2.2% year-on-year in Q4, staying flat from the previous quarter. The unemployment rate increased to 5.3% from 5.1% in January. The Australian Dollar depreciated by 1.4% against the US dollar this week. Much of the decline was driven by the perceived dovish tone of the minutes from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) February meeting. The RBA’s primary concerns were slow consumption growth and the effects of the bushfires on growth in the near-term.  However, the housing market, led by Sydney and Melbourne, is picking up quickly. We remain positive AUD/USD but will stand aside if it breaches 60 cents. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been mixed: Visitor arrivals declined by 0.2% year-on-year in December. The ANZ monthly inflation gauge remained flat at 3.2% year-on-year in January, The REINZ house price index grew by 0.3% month-on-month in January. The Global Dairy Trade price index declined 2.9% in February. The New Zealand dollar depreciated by 1.6% against the US dollar this week. Dairy trade was hampered by weak demand from China and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern warned of a negative impact on GDP growth in the first half of 2020 from Covid-19.  Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been mixed: Manufacturing sales contracted by 0.7% month-on-month in December. Headline CPI grew by 2.4%, while the BoC core measure grew 1.8% year-on-year in January. The Canadian dollar appreciated by 0.1% against the US dollar this week. The rally was driven by the surge in oil prices over the past two weeks coinciding with a decline in the number of new Covid-19 cases. While acknowledging the negative demand shock from China, our Commodity and Energy strategists currently believe that Chinese policy stimulus will help shore up oil demand going into the second half of this year. This will be bullish CAD. Report Links: The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been mixed: Import prices contracted by 1.9% year-on-year in January, compared to a contraction of 3.2% the previous month.  The trade balance increased to CHF 4,788 million in January from CHF 1,975 million the previous month. Industrial production grew by 1.6% year-on-year in Q4 2019, slowing from 7.9% the previous quarter. The CHF depreciated 0.4% against the US dollar this week. The SNB has repeatedly emphasized that it stands ready to prevent rampant appreciation in the Swiss franc which could hurt exports. Report Links: Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Norway this week: The trade balance decreased to NOK 21.2 billion in January from NOK 25.6 billion the previous month. The Norwegian krone depreciated by 0.7% against the US dollar this week. The past two weeks saw a remarkable rally in oil prices, which should help the petrocurrency, but a strong dollar has weighed on NOK/USD. However, our NOK/EUR position, a part of our long petrocurrencies basket trade, has benefitted from the oil rally and weakness in the euro. In an annual speech this week, Governor Olsen of the Norges Bank stressed the need for Norway to decrease reliance on the sovereign wealth fund and transition to a less oil-dependent economy. In the long run, this could mean krona leaving behind the “petrocurrency” moniker. Report Links: Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been negative. The unemployment rate increased to 7.5% in January from 6% the previous month. The CPI grew by 1.3% year-on-year in January, compared to 1.8% the previous month. The Swedish krona depreciated by 1.9% against the US dollar this week. In the February monetary policy report released last week, the Riksbank revised down inflation forecasts due to lower energy prices in 2020. However, they expect this to be a transitory shock and see inflation moving closer to 2% once it subsides. Although the krona depreciated on the unemployment and inflation data this week, it looks unlikely to be enough for the Riksbank to change its policy stance. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

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

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