Fixed Income

Highlights Duration: Last week’s bond market sell-off was a headfake and does not portend a sustained move higher in Treasury yields. We will need to see a stabilization in confirmed COVID-19 cases and signs of improving global growth before calling the bottom in yields. Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. Yield Curve: A fed funds rate pinned at zero means that the yield curve will trade directionally with yields for the foreseeable future. The yield curve’s recent re-shaping also means that a barbelled Treasury portfolio now only offers a small yield advantage. We recommend shifting out of a barbell and into a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Corporate Spreads: High-yield spreads are now fairly priced for a default cycle of similar magnitude to the 2001/02 recession, and the Fed’s entrance into the corporate bond market is a potential game changer for investment grade spreads. Investors should increase exposure to investment grade corporates from neutral to overweight. High-yield investors with horizons of 12 months or more should also start adding exposure. Fed Policy: The Fed is frantically trying to mitigate the impact of three different (though related) shocks: An economic shock, a liquidity shock and a credit shock. We assess its progress to date and discuss what could be done next. Feature Headfake Chart 1Not A Reflationary Environment Bond yields jumped early last week, shortly after the Fed cut rates back to the zero bound. At one point the 10-year Treasury yield reached as high as 1.18%. But make no mistake, this was not the start of a protracted bond sell off. By Monday morning, the 10-year was back down to 0.75%. Evidently, the conditions for a sustained move higher in Treasury yields are not yet in place. To see why this is so, we need to look a little bit beyond the headline grabbing change in nominal yields and notice that, even when the nominal 10-year yield moved up early last week, the 10-year real yield increased much more quickly, causing the implied cost of inflation protection to fall (Chart 1). This is unusual behavior. Typically, real yields, nominal yields and breakeven inflation rates are all positively correlated. This is because an improving economic outlook usually leads investors to expect both higher inflation and a higher fed funds rate in the future, and vice-versa. When the correlation breaks down it is usually related to some policy action or constraint. For example, investors could come to believe that the Fed will keep interest rates too low for far too long, causing real yields to fall even as inflation expectations jump. Or, as is the case right now, the market could recognize the zero-lower-bound constraint on Fed policy and start to price-in a scenario where the Fed can’t cut rates far enough to jumpstart economic growth. Real yields move higher in this scenario, but inflation expectations crash. We are seeing the same dynamic of rising real yields and falling inflation expectations that was witnessed in 2008. This same dynamic of rising real yields and falling inflation expectations was witnessed in 2008, when the Fed was rapidly cutting rates but investors did not view that action as sufficient (Chart 2). Falling equity prices and a rising dollar further underscored that the environment was becoming more deflationary, not reflationary. A sustained rise in bond yields can only be caused by a reflationary environment. Chart 2Shades Of 2008 How Close To The Bottom? The relevant question then becomes: How close are we to returning to a reflationary environment? To answer this question we will rely on the checklist to call the bottom in bond yields that we unveiled two weeks ago.1 That checklist contains four factors: A stabilization in confirmed COVID-19 cases Improving global economic growth (particularly in China) Weaker US economic data A trigger from one or more technical trading rules Last week we started to see the first signs of weaker US economic data. Initial jobless claims spiked to 281k and both the New York and Philadelphia Fed regional manufacturing surveys plunged (Chart 3). We expect the bottom in bond yields will occur when the US economic data are very weak and when economies that experienced the outbreak earlier – such as China – are showing signs of rebounding. Investors will superimpose the Chinese experience onto the US. But it is still too early for that. Global growth bellwethers such as the CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index remain in freefall (Chart 3, bottom panel). We also noted that we want to see stabilization in the global number of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Essentially, this would mean the number of daily new cases falling close to zero. We are far from that point, as the daily number of new cases continues to rise exponentially (Chart 4). Chart 3Weaker US Data, But No Global Recovery Chart 4New Cases Still Rising We should also mention that we expect risk assets – equities and corporate credit – to bottom before Treasury yields, as the Fed will take care not to signal a premature removal of crisis stimulus measures. Finally, two weeks ago we described several technical trading rules that have demonstrated some success at calling troughs in Treasury yields in the past. Since last week, one of our three proposed trading rules was briefly triggered, but that signal was quickly reversed. Bottom Line: Last week’s bond market sell-off was a headfake and does not portend a sustained move higher in Treasury yields. We will need to see a stabilization in confirmed COVID-19 cases and signs of improving global growth before calling the bottom in yields. Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. A Quick Note On TIPS In last week’s report we made the case for long-term investors to buy TIPS relative to equivalent-maturity nominal Treasuries.2  The reasoning is that TIPS breakeven inflation rates offer exceptional value relative to likely future inflation outcomes. For example, the 5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 0.31% and the 10-year rate is 0.75%. This means that a buy-and-hold investor will make money owning TIPS versus nominals if inflation averages more than 0.31% per year for the next five years, or 0.75% per year for the next decade. Chart 51-Year TIPS Return Scenarios We also observed last week that TIPS breakeven inflation rates have turned negative at the front-end of the curve. We described this pricing as irrational because of the embedded deflation floors in TIPS. This was incorrect. While TIPS will always pay at least par at maturity, seasoned TIPS with only a year or two left to maturity already have inflation-adjusted principal values that are well above par. In other words, there is room for deflation to influence the returns from these securities before any floor is triggered. Specifically, we can take a look at the TIPS maturing in just over one year, on April 15 2021 (Chart 5). This note has an accumulated principal of just under $109 and is currently trading at an ask price of $97.63.3 According to our calculations, this security will earn 2.55% if headline CPI inflation is 0% over the next 12 months. It will only lose money if headline CPI inflation comes in at -2.49% or below. What’s more, it will return more than a 12-month nominal T-bill as long as inflation is above -2.4%. Note that the lowest year-over-year headline CPI inflation print during the Great Financial Crisis was -2.1%. TIPS offer exceptional value relative to nominal Treasuries for investors who are able to hold the trade for at least one year. Bottom Line: TIPS offer exceptional value relative to nominal Treasuries for investors who are able to hold the trade for at least one year.  Treasury Curve: Re-Visiting The Zero-Lower-Bound Playbook Chart 6Curve Will Trade Directionally With Yields The Fed’s aggressive policy easing has caused the yield curve to re-shape dramatically during the past few weeks. The 2/10 Treasury slope is up to 55 bps from a 2019 low of -4 bps. The 2/30 Treasury slope is up to 118 bps from a 2019 low of 42 bps, and the 2/5 Treasury slope is up to 15 bps from a 2019 low of -13 bps. Looking through the recent volatility, the fact that the fed funds rate is back to a range between 0% and 0.25% means that we can dust off our yield curve playbook from the last zero-lower-bound period. Fortunately, that playbook is quite straightforward. With the front-end of the curve pinned near zero, the slope of the yield curve will essentially trade directionally with the level of Treasury yields for the foreseeable future. Chart 6 shows that during the last zero-lower-bound period, the 2/30, 2/10 and 2/5 slopes were all positively correlated with the 5-year Treasury yield. This correlation suggests one obvious strategy. If you think yields will rise, put on steepeners. If you think they will fall, put on flatteners. Or if, like us, you suspect that bond yields will be higher in 12 months but are not quite ready to call the bottom, you could hedge benchmark or above-benchmark portfolio duration by entering a duration-neutral steepener. What About Value Across The Curve? Chart 7Bullets Looking Less Expensive Until recently, investors could earn large positive carry by owning a barbell consisting of the long and short ends of the Treasury curve (e.g. 2/30) and shorting the belly (e.g. 5yr), in duration-matched terms. But this has changed. The 2/10 barbell now only offers 6 bps of positive carry versus the 5-year bullet, while the 2/30 barbell and 5-year bullet offer approximately the same yield. Both the 2/5/10 and 2/5/30 butterfly spreads are also much closer to the fair values suggested by our models (Chart 7).4 Though we are not ready to call the bottom in Treasury yields, we think the 5-year yield is sufficiently attractive to initiate a duration-neutral curve steepener trade: go long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This trade should perform well if the 2/10 slope steepens going forward. Since a steeper curve is now positively correlated with the level of yields, this trade will profit if yields move higher. Viewed this way, the trade acts as a hedge when implemented alongside our conservative ‘At Benchmark’ portfolio duration recommendation. Bottom Line: A fed funds rate pinned at zero means that the yield curve will trade directionally with yields for the foreseeable future. The yield curve’s recent re-shaping also means that a barbelled Treasury portfolio now only offers a small yield advantage. We recommend shifting out of a barbell and into a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. Corporate Spread Update Corporate spreads continue to widen very quickly. As such, our conclusions from last week about the amount of value in corporate bonds are already out of date. Our value assessment is based on our High-Yield Default-Adjusted Spread, which is the excess spread left over in the high-yield index after removing actual 12-month default losses. Table 1 shows how often the Default-Adjusted Spread has been in different 50 basis point intervals, and what sort of 12-month junk excess returns occurred during those periods. One conclusion from the table: To be confident that high-yield will outperform duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month horizon, we would need to expect a Default-Adjusted Spread of at least 150 bps. Preferably, the spread would be greater than or equal to 250 bps, the historical average. The red numbers down the right-hand side of Table 1 indicate what the Default-Adjusted Spread will be for the next 12 months if the speculative grade default rate hits a specific value. For example, a default rate of 6%, which would correspond to a default cycle of a similar magnitude as 2015/16, implies a very attractive Default-Adjusted Spread of +633 bps. In contrast, a default rate of 14% or greater would lead to a negative Default-Adjusted Spread. For context, the default rate peaked at 15% and 11% in the 2008 and 2001/2 recessions, respectively. Table 1What's Priced In Credit Spreads? As of now, our base case scenario is that the current default cycle will be more severe than the 2015/16 episode but probably not as bad as the 2008 financial crisis. Something on the order of 9% - 11% seems plausible. If that’s the case, then the Default-Adjusted Spread will be somewhere between 216 bps and 394 bps. This looks quite attractive. Additionally, yesterday’s announcement that the Fed will effectively be entering the investment grade corporate bond market could be a game changer. As a result, we recommend increasing exposure to investment grade corporate bonds from neutral to overweight. For high-yield, it is possible that spreads will widen more in the near-term, but value is now sufficiently attractive for investors with investment horizons of 12 months or more to start adding exposure. We retain our neutral 6-12 month recommended allocation for now, but will re-visit the question in more detail in next week’s report.  To be confident that high-yield will outper­form duration-matched Treasuries on a 12-month horizon, we would need to expect a Default-Adjusted Spread of at least 150 bps.  Bottom Line: High-yield spreads are now fairly priced for a default cycle of similar magnitude to the 2001/02 recession, and the Fed’s entrance into the corporate bond market is a potential game changer for investment grade spreads. Investors should increase exposure to investment grade corporates from neutral to overweight. High-yield investors with horizons of 12 months or more should also start adding exposure. The Fed’s War On Three Fronts   Events continue to unfold rapidly in financial markets and in terms of the Fed’s response to the market turmoil. We conclude this week’s report with a brief discussion of the three main shocks that the Fed is frantically trying to contain. We also assess how successful the Fed’s responses might be. #1: The Economic Shock The first shock that the Fed is trying to contain is the pure shock to aggregate demand that is occurring as a result of widespread quarantine measures. In cutting rates to zero and signaling that rates will not rise any time soon, the Fed has effectively done all it can to help fight the economic shock. It should help a little. Lower interest rates will ease the debt burden of homeowners who can refinance their mortgages. They may also lower costs for firms that are able to issue debt to weather the current storm. But these effects are minor compared to the fiscal measures currently making their way through Congress.5 Next steps for the Fed: None. The Fed is effectively out of bullets to contain the economic shock. It’s all about fiscal policy now. #2: Market Liquidity Shock Chart 8Bond Market Liquidity Shock In addition to the economic shock, the Fed is also responding to a severe market liquidity shock. What we mean by a “market liquidity shock” is that investors are finding it more expensive (or difficult) to transact in certain markets because of the scarce amount of capital being deployed to those areas. This is different than credit risk (see Shock #3). We are not talking about investors having trouble transacting because there are few willing buyers of credit risk. We are talking about high transaction costs in otherwise risk-free parts of the bond market. The issue is critical because these risk-free parts of the bond market (overnight repo, for example) are often used to fund riskier investments. Disruption in funding markets can have ripple-on effects into other, less opaque, areas. We currently see several examples of disruptions to bond market liquidity (Chart 8): Repo rates have spiked relative to the overnight index swap curve (Chart 8, top panel). The iShares 20+ year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) is suddenly trading at a huge discount to its net asset value (Chart 8, panel 2). Cross-currency basis swap spreads have turned deeply negative, meaning that it is more expensive for non-US actors to obtain US dollar funding (Chart 8, bottom panel). Wider-than-normal bid/ask spreads are being reported in the Treasury market (not shown). These disruptions are occurring because the financial system is not deploying enough capital to market-making activities in these areas. Essentially, nonfinancial firms have drawn on their revolving credit lines during the past few weeks and this has left the financial system short of cash to deploy toward market-making activities. To fix the problem, the Fed has started to transact directly (in large amounts) in both the repo and Treasury markets. This essentially replaces the function that banks were performing until a few weeks ago. But perhaps more importantly, the Fed is also encouraging banks to deploy the capital that already sits on their balance sheets. Unlike during the 2008 financial crisis, banks now carry a lot of capital – the result of Dodd-Frank and Basel III regulations. What the banks need now is tacit permission from regulators to deploy that capital into financial markets, without concern that they will face consequences during a future stress test. Table 2Banks Have Excess Capital Even without any specific changes to regulation, Table 2 shows that the big 5 US financial institutions all carry significant buffers above the regulatory minimum 100% Liquidity Coverage Ratio and 6% Supplementary Leverage Ratio. At a minimum, these excess buffers must be deployed to aid market liquidity. Next steps: The Fed is already transacting directly in both the repo and Treasury markets, and behind closed doors it is most certainly encouraging banks to deploy more capital toward market-making activities. If these actions prove insufficient, the next step would be for the Fed – along with other regulators and possibly Congress – to offer temporary regulatory relief for banks, lowering the required Liquidity Coverage and Supplementary Leverage ratios. We view this market liquidity problem as one that regulators will be able to solve. And given the Fed’s aggressive policy response to date, we expect that regulators will get a handle on the issue and restore bond market liquidity fairly soon. #3 Credit Shock Chart 9Can The Credit Shock Be Contained? We draw a distinction between spreads widening because of a lack of market liquidity and spreads widening because investors are unwilling to take credit risk. Though admittedly, it is not always easy to distinguish between these two factors in real time. But there is no doubt that the economy is also grappling with a credit shock, in addition to the economic and liquidity shocks we already mentioned. Some evidence that market players are less willing to take credit risk (Chart 9): The average option-adjusted spread on the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Bond index has spiked (Chart 9, top panel). The spread between the 3-month commercial paper rate and the overnight index swap rate has surged (Chart 9, panel 2). The Municipal / Treasury yield ratio is higher than it was during the financial crisis (Chart 9, panel 3). The 30-year mortgage rate has so far not followed Treasury yields lower (Chart 9, bottom panel). The Fed can take some measures to mitigate the negative impacts of a credit shock, and it has already taken quite a few. The Fed has set up facilities to back-stop commercial paper and short-maturity municipal debt. It also announced yesterday morning that it will, in conjunction with the Treasury department, enter the investment grade corporate bond market out to the 5-year maturity point, effectively back-stopping a large portion of corporate issuance. The Fed has not yet set up a facility to purchase longer-maturity municipal bonds, but this could be forthcoming. The Fed is also directly purchasing large amounts of Agency MBS in an effort to tighten the spread between the mortgage rate and Treasury yields. The Fed’s measures to guarantee some risky debt can help solve some problems related to a credit shock. For example, if Fed purchases increase asset values for corporate and municipal bonds, then it lessens the risk of bankruptcy both for the issuing firms and for any systemically-important investment fund that may be levered to those markets. However, Fed purchases do not guarantee that stressed firms will be able to take out new debt, nor do they prevent firms from cutting payrolls in the face of lower demand. Only direct cash bailouts from the government can fix those problems. Next steps: The Fed could add another facility to purchase long-maturity municipal bonds. It could also implement a “funding for lending” scheme similar to what the Bank of England has done. These measures, along with what has already been announced, will help ease the credit shock at the margin. But ultimately, cash bailouts from Congress to firms and state & local governments will be required.    Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When And Where Will Bond Yields Trough?”, dated March 10, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buying Opportunities & Worst-Case Scenarios”, dated March 17, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Numbers quoted assuming a par value of $100. 4 For details on our yield curve models please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 The global fiscal response to the COVID crisis is discussed in more detail in Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “De-Globalization Confirmed”, dated March 20, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

  Highlights Market Turmoil: The combination of accelerating global cases of COVID-19, a surging US dollar and elevated market volatility has wreaked havoc on financial markets. A sustainable bottom in global risk assets (and, potentially, bond yields) requires a reversal of all three of those trends. Fed & ECB: Central bankers on both sides of the Atlantic are now committing to provide liquidity backstops for both government bonds and corporate debt by promising “unlimited” purchases. This effectively removes the left tail of the return distribution on debt of more questionable quality that has seen significant spread widening, like US BBB-rated corporates and Peripheral European sovereign debt. Fixed Income Strategy: Upgrade US investment grade corporates to overweight from neutral, and upgrade Italian government bonds to overweight from underweight, on both a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying Chart of the WeekAre These Market Stress Points Turning? The COVID-19 outbreak has become a full-blown global health crisis, with country after country imposing lockdowns on their populations to control the spread of the disease. The economic ramifications are now obvious: a certain deep global recession, but one of indeterminate length. The investment implications are also now clear: bear markets in global equities, credit and growth-sensitive currencies and commodities. There is a new bull market, however, in pessimism. Economic forecasters are tripping over themselves to offer up the most shocking estimate of the severity of the downturn. The IMF is now expecting a recession in 2020 “at least as bad” as during the global financial crisis. Wall Street investment banks are forecasting double-digit declines in US GDP growth during the second quarter. St. Louis Fed President Fed James Bullard wins the prize for the most gloomy prediction, suggesting that we could see a 30% US unemployment rate and a -50% (!) decline in US GDP growth in Q2. Investors have seen few positive headlines on the spread of the virus, resulting in a de-risking “dash for cash” that has impeded liquidity across equity, fixed income and currency markets. Global policymakers have responded with trillions of dollars of monetary and fiscal policy announcements designed to calm nervous markets while ensuring liquidity provision for temporarily shuttered businesses, of all sizes, facing painful layoff announcements. Chart 2Get Ready For Shockingly Weak Global Economic Data Have we seen enough stimulus to stop the market turmoil? In our view, three things must all occur for a sustainable bottom in global risk assets, and potentially bond yields, to unfold (Chart of the Week): Slowing growth in new COVID-19 infections outside China. As long as the global spread of the virus shows no signs of slowing down, it will be impossible for markets to ascertain the full hit to global growth from the outbreak. A cooling off of the surging US dollar. The greenback has soared 8% since March 9, and is wreaking havoc on global borrowers who have significant USD-denominated liabilities. Global financial market volatility must peak. Volatility spikes across all major asset classes have forced investors to de-risk portfolios; lower volatility will have the opposite effect. Of late, the news on all three fronts is tentatively more positive. The US DXY dollar index is off from the peak, the VIX index of US equity volatility is off the extreme highs and the number of new cases of COVID-19 in virus-ravaged Italy has declined for the past two days. While it is still early to call a lasting peak in these measures, it is potentially a sign of optimism coming at a time when economic confidence measures like the ZEW surveys are back to 2008 levels and a China-like collapse in activity is now expected in the US (Chart 2). We now think it is time to pick through the ashes of the global market rout and begin to add back some risk in global bond portfolios. We now think it is time to pick through the ashes of the global market rout and begin to add back some risk in global bond portfolios. After seeing the policy announcements of the past week, however, we are choosing to dip our toes back into the water in assets that now have direct central bank liquidity backstops – namely US investment grade corporates and Italian sovereign debt. The Fed Is Now Truly The Lender Of Last Resort … To Corporates The Fed unloaded their biggest of bazookas yesterday, expanding existing stimulus programs while introducing new initiatives that reach into parts of the US economy and financial markets previously untouched by the central bank. Specifically, the Fed did the following: Announcing unlimited quantitative easing (QE) for US Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) Increasing the size of money market and commercial paper liquidity programs announced last week, and expanding the range of eligible assets Adding commercial MBS (CMBS) to asset purchases, which was never done even in 2008 Reviving the 2008 crisis-era Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF) to make loans directly to companies, while introducing a new “Main Street Business Lending Program” that will fund small businesses directly (details are yet to be determined) Most significantly for bond investors, the Fed will begin buying corporate bonds, in both primary and secondary markets, while also providing direct lending to eligible companies through loans. This will be done through off-balance sheet Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV), initially funded with $10 billion from the US Treasury and levered up by the Fed to whatever amount is necessary The Fed primary market SPV will buy newly-issued bonds with credit ratings as low as BBB- and maturities of four years or less. Eligible issuers are US businesses with material operations in the United States, although the Fed noted that the list of companies in the program may be expanded in the future. Eligible issuers do not include companies that are expected to receive direct financial assistance from the US government (i.e. no buying of bonds from companies getting bailout funds). The most significant details of the Fed’s new primary market corporate bond buying program are the numerical limits of what can be purchased. Any eligible company can “borrow” from the Fed, though bond purchases or direct loans, an amount greater than the maximum outstanding debt (bonds plus loans) on any day over the past twelve months. Those percentages are determined by credit quality: 140% of all debt for AAA-rated issuers, 130% for AA-rated issuers, 120% for A-rated issuers and 110% for BBB-rated issuers. Since those percentages are all greater than 100, this effectively means that the Fed will allow eligible companies to roll over their entire stock of debt through this program, plus some net new borrowing. The Fed is even calling this “bridge financing for up to four years” in their official term sheets for the new program.1 Issuers can even defer interest payments on the funds borrowed from the Fed for up to six months, with the interest payments added to the final repayment amount (again, any company choosing this option can do no share buybacks or dividend payments). In addition to this direct lending to investment grade rated issuers, the Fed is introducing another SPV that will buy corporate bonds of eligible investment grade issuers in the secondary market. This will be for bonds with maturity of up to five years and credit ratings as low as BBB-, with a buying limit of 10% of the entire stock of eligible debt of any single company. This secondary market SPV will also buy investment grade bond ETFs, up to 20% the outstanding shares of any single ETF. All of these programs are set to run to September 30 of this year, with an option to extend as needed. The Fed’s new initiatives represent a new step for the central bank, providing direct lending to any company that needs it. The Fed had to do this through off-balance-sheet SPVs, since direct buying of corporates is not permitted under the Federal Reserve Act. Thus, it is not like the Fed’s QE programs that used to buy Treasuries and MBS – in fact, it is the US Treasury that is taking on the initial credit risk through its $10 billion funding of each SPV. In this sense, the Fed's new program is also different than the corporate bond QE programs of the ECB, Bank of England and Bank of Japan, where the credit risk is directly taken onto the central bank balance sheet. The purpose of these new corporate bond programs is two-fold: 1. To ensure that companies do not suffer a credit crunch, either by being unable to roll over maturing corporate debt in primary markets or by only doing so at prohibitively high yields and spreads 2. To ensure the proper functioning of US corporate bond markets, by providing liquidity to both cash bonds and related ETFs. By doing this, the Fed can help mitigate the severe tightening of financial conditions that has already occurred because of the credit selloff in recent weeks. Also, by helping to reduce the extreme price/spread volatility in higher-quality credit, the Fed may be hoping this can spill over into lower volatility of other asset classes which are at the historical extremes of the past quarter century (Chart 3). Both can help mitigate the second round effects of the virtual shutdown of the US economy that has taken place to contain the spread of COVID-19. Chart 3Few Places To Hide From Historically High Volatility The Fed’s unprecedented intervention in the US corporate bond market is a positive step that has improved the risk/reward profile for US investment grade credit, coming after a period of significant spread widening that has restored some value to the asset class. We will further discuss the implications of the Fed’s actions in a corporate bond Special Report that we will publish jointly next week with our colleagues at BCA US Bond Strategy. For now, however, the Fed’s unprecedented intervention in the US corporate bond market is a positive step that has improved the risk/reward profile for US investment grade credit, coming after a period of significant spread widening that has restored some value to the asset class (Chart 4). Chart 4A New Huge IG Liquidity Backstop From The Fed Could the Fed’s actions spill over into non-US credit, as well? Chart 5This Is A Global Widening Of Credit Spreads Chart 6Signs Of USD Funding Stress, But Nothing Like 2008 The COVID-19 crisis has resulted in credit spread widening across the world, especially so for the big borrowers of USD-denominated debt in the emerging markets and US shale oil industry (Chart 5). For those issuers, a weaker USD would be more positive development, as would higher oil prices. The Fed’s other monetary policy actions – cutting the funds rate to 0%, moving to unlimited QE for Treasuries and MBS, should be helping to weaken the US dollar. The problem, however, is that all other major central banks are now doing similar policy easings as well, with even the likes of the Reserve Bank of Australia and Reserve Bank of New Zealand now starting bond-buying QE programs. This exacerbates the strong USD problem, seen in the stresses in USD funding markets (Chart 6). Simply put, the Fed cannot generate easier financial conditions, both in the US and elsewhere, through a weaker USD. Thus, the Fed has to seek other ways to ease US financial conditions – like helping cap borrowing costs for investment grade US borrowers by direct intervention in those markets. Bottom Line: The Fed’s move into buying investment grade corporate debt, and providing term lending to corporates more broadly, has effectively eliminated the left tail of the return distribution for investment grade US credit. The ECB Is Moving Towards Being The Lender Of Last Resort – For Euro Area Sovereigns The Fed is not the only central bank that ramped up its asset purchases. The ECB also increased its existing Asset Purchase Program by a massive €750bn last week, across both sovereign and corporate debt. This new program was dubbed the “Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program” (PEPP) and is to take place over the rest of 2020 in order to help fight the negative impacts on the European economy and financial markets from the COVID-19 outbreak. The most important part of the announcement of the PEPP, however, was in the loosening of previous restrictions of the ECB’s €2.6 trillion Asset Purchase Program (APP). Greek bonds were included in the PEPP by allowing a waiver to the rules of the APP that forbid the inclusion of Greece in the funding program. Also, the ECB hinted in its statement announcing the new program that the self-imposed limits on the APP could be revised, if necessary, for the more “temporary” PEPP to help fight the COVID-19 crisis. That was a clear signal to the markets that the ECB could deviate from the “capital key” country weightings, and the 33% single sovereign issuer limit, that have governed the APP. This is very positive news for Italy, where COVID-19 has been particularly devastating and deadly, causing the entire country to be locked down to control its spread. The ECB could deviate from the “capital key” country weightings, and the 33% single sovereign issuer limit, that have governed the APP. This is very positive news for Italy, where COVID-19 has been particularly devastating and deadly, causing the entire country to be locked down to control its spread.  Already, Italy and the rest of the EU have been given a temporary waiver of the EU’s fiscal policy targets (government deficit no larger than 3% of GDP, government debt no larger than 60% of GDP). Now that the ECB is also willing to consider suspending its own limits on asset purchases, Italy has been given the “space” to run larger deficits without the market punishment of higher bond yields – especially with the ECB only owning around 20% of the stock of Italian government debt, well below the 33% single country APP limit (Chart 7). Chart 7The ECB Can Buy More Italian Debt, If Necessary Already, the ECB announcement triggered a sharp decline in Italian bond yields (and Greek yields, for that matter) and tightening of the spread between Italian and German bond yields. So far, the threat of the ECB buying more Italy has been enough to get private investors to buy more Italian bonds, similar to Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes” promise back in 2012. Draghi never had to buy a single bond to get the market to move in his favor then. In 2020, given the collapse in European growth seen so far in response to COVID-19 lockdowns, and the acute hit to the Italian economy from the virus, we suspect that Christine Lagarde will be far likely to actually buy more Italian debt – especially with even the hard-money Germans now engaged in deficit spending to stimulate the virus-stricken German economy. We interpret all this similarly to our read of the Fed’s buying of corporate debt – the ECB has changed the risk/reward profile of Italian government bonds by not only introducing the PEPP, but having it operated under different rules than the APP. Bottom Line: The ECB’s new bond buying program has significantly reduced the downside risk of Italian government debt over the next 6-12 months. Fixed Income Strategy Implications The Fed’s dramatic move into direct funding of US companies is a game changer for the US corporate bond market. By providing a full liquidity backstop to all companies, the Fed is ensuring that no US investment grade issuer will have to worry about rolling over their maturing debt in an illiquid and nervous corporate bond market. Simply put, the Fed has cut out the left side of the distribution of corporate bond returns for the foreseeable future. The same argument goes for the ECB’s increased purchases of government bonds, with promises to buy more Italian debt, if necessary. For these reasons, we are upgrading our recommended stance on US investment grade corporate debt, and Italian sovereign debt to overweight - both on a tactical (0-6 months) basis in our model bond portfolio and on a strategic (6-12 months) basis. Chart 8Upgrade US IG Corporates And Italian Sovereign Debt On CB Buying For these reasons, we are upgrading our recommended stance on US investment grade corporate debt, and Italian sovereign debt to overweight - both on a tactical (0-6 months) basis in our model bond portfolio and on a strategic (6-12 months) basis (Chart 8). We are focusing only on these two markets for now, as an initial step to increase our recommended exposure to fixed income risk assets. There may be a spillover into other credit markets and sovereign debt, like European investment grade and Spanish government bonds. For now, however, we are focusing on US investment grade and Italy, while keeping underweights in other credit markets as a hedge against a renewed flare-up of COVID-19 related market risk. Bottom Line: Upgrade US investment grade corporates to overweight from neutral, and upgrade Italian government bonds to overweight from underweight, on both a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The details of the Fed’s new corporate bond buying programs can be found here: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20200323b1.pdf  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20200323b2.pdf Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, I provided an update through a webcast on the economic and financial market outlook in the era of the COVID-19 outbreak. You can access the webcast here. In lieu of our regular report this week, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan shows why the most widely cited estimate of the US neutral rate of interest, the Laubach & Williams estimate of “R-star”, is very likely wrong and that the true neutral rate may be higher than many investors believe. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. I hope you find the report insightful. Please note that next week we will be publishing our quarterly Strategy Outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the real neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even once economic recovery takes hold unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). This report revisits the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrates why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. We also outline an inferential approach that investors can use to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. The core conclusion for investors is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, investors should avoid dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about yields as they may rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. Feature Over the past several weeks financial markets have moved rapidly to price in a global recession stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. As financial market participants began to turn to policy makers for support, eyes focused first on the Federal Reserve, and then fiscal authorities. Earlier this week, the ECB joined the party and announced aggressive further measures of its own. When responding to the Fed’s return to the lower bound and its other recent monetary policy decisions, many market participants have expressed the view that the Fed is largely impotent to deal with a global pandemic. There are three elements to this view. The first is that interest rate cuts are ill equipped to stimulate domestic demand if quarantine measures or other forms of “social distancing” are in effect. The second element is that the Fed has only been capable of delivering a fraction of the reduction in interest rates compared to what has occurred in response to previous contractions. The third aspect of this view is that because the neutral rate of interest is so much lower now than it was in the past, Fed rate cuts will not be as stimulative as they were before. Chart 1Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate While we at least partly agree with the first and second elements of this view, we feel strongly that the third is flawed. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013,1 and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. This time series, which is regularly updated by the New York Fed,2 suggests that the real fed funds rate reached neutral territory in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart 1). With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even beyond the near term unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). In this Special Report we revisit the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrate why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. Our analysis does not reveal a precise alternative estimate of the neutral rate, although we do provide some inferential perspective on how investors may be able to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. However, the core insight emanating from our report, particularly for US fixed income investors, is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once economic activity recovers. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise may be larger than many investors currently expect. Demystifying The LW R-star Estimate The LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest has gained credibility for three reasons. First, as noted above, the evolution of the series fits with the secular stagnation narrative re-popularized by Larry Summers. Second, the series is essentially sponsored by the Federal Reserve even if it is not officially part of the Fed’s forecasting framework, as its two creators are long-time Fed employees (Thomas Laubach is a director of the Fed’s Board of Governors, and John Williams is the current President of the New York Fed). But, in our view, there is a third important reason that global investors have accepted the LW R-star estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the methodology used to generate the estimate is extremely technically complex, and thus is difficult for most investors to penetrate. Much of the technical complexity of the LW estimate is centered around the use of a statistical procedure called a Kalman filter (“KF”). Simply described, the KF is an algorithm that tries to estimate an unobservable variable based on 1) an idea of how the unobservable variable might relate to an observable variable (the “measurement equation”), and 2) an idea of how the unobservable variable might change through time (the “transition equation”). Through a repeated process of simulating the unobserved variable based on a set of assumptions, the KF is able to compare predicted results to actual results on an observation-by-observation basis, and use that information to generate ever more reliable future estimates of the unobserved variable (Chart 2). Chart 2A Very Simplified Overview Of The Kalman Filter Algorithm We acknowledge that a full technical treatment of the Kalman Filter as it relates to the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest is beyond the scope of this report, and we provide a more technical overview in Box 1. But what emerges from a detailed analysis of the model is that the Kalman Filter jointly estimates R-star, potential GDP growth, potential GDP, and the variable “z”, the determinants of R-star that are not explained by potential GDP growth. As we will highlight in the next section, this joint estimation of these four variables is a crucial aspect of the model, because a valid estimate of R-star necessitates a valid estimate of the remaining variables. Box 1 A Technical Overview Of The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Debunking The LW R-star Estimate Before criticizing the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest, it is important for us to note that we have the utmost respect for the Federal Reserve and its research methods. We fully acknowledge that the LW R-star estimation is rooted in solid economic theory, and we have identified no technical errors in the setup of the LW model. Nevertheless, valid analytical efforts sometimes lead to problematic real-world results, and there are two key reasons to believe that the Kalman filter in the LW model is almost certainly misspecifying R-star, at least in terms of its estimate over the past two decades. The first reason relates to the sensitivity of the model to the interval of estimation (the period over which R-star is estimated). Chart 3 presents the range of quarterly estimates of R-star since 2005, along with the difference between the high and low end of the range in the second panel. The chart shows that while previous estimates of R-star have generally been stable for values ranging between the early-1980s and 2006/2007, pre-1980 estimates have varied quite substantially and we have seen material revisions to the estimates over the past decade. Q1 2018 serves as an excellent example: in that quarter R-star was estimated to be 0.14%; today, the Q1 2018 R-star estimate sits at 0.92%. Chart 3Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates   However, Table 1 and Chart 4 highlight the real instability of the Kalman filter estimation by demonstrating the effect of varying the starting point of the model (please see Box 2 for a brief description of how our estimation of R-star using the LW approach differs slightly from the original procedure). Laubach & Williams originally estimated R-star beginning in Q1 1961; Table 1 shows what happens to today’s estimate of R-star simply by incrementally varying the starting point of the model from Q1 1958 to Q4 1979. Table 1Alternative Current LW Estimates Of R-star By Model Starting Point Chart 4Alternative Starting Points Produce Wildly Different Estimates Of R-star Today Box 2 The Laubach & Williams R-star Model With Simplified Inflation Expectations The table highlights that the model fails to even generate a result in a majority of the cases (only 39 out of 88 of the model runs were error-free). In addition, Chart 4 shows that of the successful estimates of R-star using the LW procedure and alternate starting dates of the model, the estimate of R-star today varies from -2% (in one case) to +2%. Excluding the one extremely negative outlier results in an effective estimate range of 0% to 2%, but the key point for investors is that this range is massive and underscores that the original model’s estimate of R-star today is heavily and unduly influenced by the interval of estimation. Investors should also note that of all of the alternative estimates of R-star today shown in Chart 4, the estimate using the original interval is very much on the low end of the distribution. The second (and most important) reason to believe that the LW estimate is misspecifying R-star is that the output gap estimate generated by the model is almost certainly invalid, at least over the past two decades. Chart 5 presents the LW output gap estimate alongside an average of the CBO, OECD, and IMF estimates of the gap; panel 1 shows the official current LW output gap estimate, whereas panel 2 shows the range of output gap estimates that are generated using the different estimation intervals highlighted in Table 1 and Chart 4. Given that the Kalman filter in the LW model jointly determines R-star and the output gap (by way of estimating potential output via estimating potential GDP growth) and that these estimates are dependent on each other, Chart 5 highlights that in order to believe the LW R-star estimate investors must believe three things: That the US economy was chronically below potential in the late-1990s when the unemployment rate was below 5%, real GDP growth averaged nearly 5%, and the equity market was booming, That output exceeded potential in 2004/2005 by a magnitude not seen since the late-1970s / early-1980s despite an average unemployment rate, That the 2008/2009 US recession was not particularly noteworthy in terms of its deviation from potential output, and that the economy had returned to potential output by 2010/2011 when the unemployment rate was in the range of 8-9%. Chart 5The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades While we do not believe any of these three statements, the third is especially unlikely. Chart 6 highlights that the economic expansion from 2009 – 2020 was the weakest on record in the post-war era in terms of average annual real per capita GDP growth. To us, this is a clear symptom of a chronic deficiency in aggregate demand, and that it is essentially unreasonable to argue that the economy was operating at full employment prior to 2014/2015. This means that the Kalman filter is generating incorrect and unreliable estimates of the output gap, which means in turn that the filter’s estimation of R-star is almost assuredly wrong. Chart 6The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 How Can Investors Tell What The Neutral Rate Is? An Inferential Approach Table 2 presents the sensitivity of the original Q1 1961 LW estimate of R-star to a series of counterfactual scenarios for inflation, real GDP growth, nominal interest rates, and import and oil prices since mid-2009. While these scenarios do not in any way improve the validity of the LW R-star estimate, they do help clarify the theoretical basis of the model and they help reveal how investors may infer whether the neutral rate of interest is higher or lower than prevailing market rates, and whether it is rising or falling. Table 2 highlights that today’s estimate of R-star using the original LW approach is mostly sensitive to our counterfactual scenarios for growth and interest rates, but not inflation or oil prices. Shifting down import price growth also has a meaningful effect on R-star, but since core import price growth has been particularly weak over the past several years (Chart 7), it seems unreasonable to suggest that they have been abnormally high and thus “explain” a low R-star estimate today. Table 2Sensitivity Of Current LW R-star Estimate To Counterfactual Scenarios (2009 - Present) Chart 7Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Table 2 essentially highlights that the entire question of the neutral rate of interest over the past decade, and the core contradiction that led to the re-emergence of the secular stagnation thesis, can effectively be boiled down to the following simple question: “Why hasn’t US economic growth been stronger this cycle, given that interest rates have been so low?” Based on the (hopefully uncontroversial) view that interest rates influence economic activity and that economic activity influences inflation, we propose the following checklist for investors to ask themselves in order to not only determine the answer to this important question, but to help identify whether R-star in any given country is likely higher or lower than existing policy rates at any given point in time. Are interest rates above or below the prevailing level of economic growth? Are interest rates rising or falling, and how intensely? Are there identifiable non-monetary shocks (positive or negative) that appear to be influencing economic activity? Is private sector credit growth keeping pace with economic growth? Are debt service burdens in the economy high or low? The first question reflects the most basic view of R-star, which is that the real neutral rate of interest should be equal to, or at least closely related to, the potential growth rate of the economy, ceteris paribus. Questions 2 through 5 attempt to determine whether ceteris paribus holds. In terms of how the answers to these questions relate to identifying the neutral rate, consider two economies, “Economy A” and “Economy B” (Chart 8). Economy A has broadly stable or slightly rising interest rates that are well below prevailing rates of economic growth (questions 1 & 2), no obvious beneficial shocks to domestic demand from fiscal policy or other factors (question 3), and strong private sector credit growth that is perhaps above or strongly above the current pace of GDP growth (question 4). Chart 8''Economy A'', Versus ''Economy B'' Inferentially, it would seem that interest rates in this hypothetical economy are below R-star today. Question 5 is in our list because the more that active private sector leveraging occurs (thus pushing up debt burdens), the more that we would expect R-star in the future to fall. This is because debt payments as a share of income cannot rise forever, and we would expect that the capacity of economy A’s central bank to raise interest rates in the future are negatively related to economy A’s private sector debt service burden today. Now, imagine another economy (“Economy B”) with interest rates well below average rates of economic growth, an interest rate trend that is flat-to-down, no identifiable non-monetary policy shocks that are restricting aggregate demand, persistently sluggish credit growth, and high private sector debt service burdens in the past. If economy B is growing (even sluggishly) and not in the middle of a recession, it would seem that prevailing interest rates are below R-star, but not significantly so. In this scenario it would seem reasonable to conclude that R-star in economy B has fallen non-trivially below its potential growth rate, and that interest rate increases are likely to move monetary policy into restrictive territory earlier than otherwise would be the case. Is The United States “Economy B”? From the perspective of some investors, our description of economy B above perfectly captures the experience of the US over the past decade: an extremely low Fed funds rate, sluggish to weak growth and inflation, all the result of a huge build-up in leverage and debt service burdens during the last economic cycle. We do not doubt that R-star fell in the US for some period of time during the global financial crisis and in the early phase of the economic recovery. But we doubt that it is as low today as the secular stagnation narrative would imply, in large part because it ignores several important aspects concerning questions 2 through 5 noted above. Chart 9Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non- Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies: Over the past 12 years, there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnect between growth and interest rates: 1) a prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014, 2) the euro area sovereign debt crisis, 3) fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 (Chart 9), 4) the US dollar / oil price shock of 2014, and 5) the recent trade war between the US and China. Several of these shocks have been policy-driven, and in the case of austerity the negative consequences of that policy has led to a lasting change in thinking among fiscal authorities (outside of Japan) that is unlikely to reverse in the near-future. Private sector credit growth: Chart 10 highlights the extent of household deleveraging noted above by showing the growth in total household liabilities over the past decade alongside income growth. Panel 2 shows the leveraging trend of firms, as represented by the nonfinancial corporate sector debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart 10 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it is now growing again and has largely closed the gap with income growth. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector has clearly leveraged itself over the course of the expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. While it is true that firms have largely leveraged themselves to buy back stock instead of significantly increasing capital expenditures, in our view this reflects the fact that US consumer demand was impaired for several years due to deleveraging. We doubt that firms would have altered their capital structures to this degree if they did not view interest rates as extremely low. Chart 10Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Debt service burdens: Chart 11 highlights that US household debt service burdens were at very elevated levels prior to the financial crisis, suggesting that the neutral rate did fall for some time following the recession. But today, the debt burden facing households is the lowest it has been in the past 40 years due to both rate reductions and deleveraging, arguing against the view that household debt levels will structurally weigh on interest rates in the years to come. Chart 12 shows that the picture is different for nonfinancial corporations, as the substantial leveraging noted above has indeed raised debt service burdens for firms. However, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio remains 400 basis points below early-2000 levels when excess corporate sector liabilities had a clear impact on the economy, suggesting that the Fed’s capacity to raise interest rates still exists following the onset of economic recovery if corporate sector credit growth does not rise sharply relative to GDP over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 11The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low Chart 12Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise The intensity of recent interest rate changes: Finally, many investors have pointed to sluggish housing activity over the past three years as evidence of a low neutral rate. However, Chart 13 highlights that the rise in the 30-year US mortgage rate from late-2016 to late-2018 was one of the largest two-year changes in US history, and Chart 14 shows that the growth in household mortgage credit did not fall below its trend during this period until Q4 2018, when the US stock market fell 20% from its high in response to the economic consequences of the US/China trade war. Chart 14 also shows that mortgage credit growth responded sharply to a recent reduction in interest rates. All in all, Charts 13 & 14 cast doubt on the notion that the level of mortgage rates over the past three years reached restrictive territory. Chart 13Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Chart 14A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market Investment Conclusions In the face of a global pandemic and an attendant global recession this year, the idea of eventual Fed rate hikes and the notion that the US economy will be able to tolerate them likely seems preposterous to many investors. We agree that over the coming 6-12 months US Treasury yields are unlikely to rise; even at current levels of the 10-year Treasury yield, we are reluctant to call a trough. Chart 15US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade However, Chart 15 highlights that over a long-term time horizon, the bond market is now essentially priced for a repeat of the ten-year path of the Fed funds rate following the global financial crisis. While some investors will view this as a reasonable expectation in the face of what they see as a persistent and unexplainable gap between growth and interest rates over the past decade, we think this gap is explainable and we highly doubt that a pandemic with minimal mortality risk to the working age population and the young will cause the US economy to be afflicted with active consumer deleveraging lasting 4 to 6-years, substantial and wide-ranging fiscal austerity, persistently rising trade tariffs, and sharply lower oil prices. So while we agree that the US economy will be substantially cyclically affected by COVID-19, US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise following the upcoming recession may be larger than many investors currently believe.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    "IMF Fourteenth Annual Research Conference in Honor of Stanley Fischer," Washington DC, November 8, 2013. 2    "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix

Highlights Our short EM equity index recommendation has reached our target and we are booking profits on this trade. The halt to economic activity will produce a global recession that will be worse than the one that took place in late 2008. We continue to recommend short positions in a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar. In EM fixed-income markets, the duration of the ongoing selloff has been short, and large losses will trigger more outflows ensuring further carnage. Stay defensive for now. Russia is unlikely to make a deal with Saudi Arabia to restrain oil output for now. Feature The global economy is experiencing a sudden, jarring halt. The only comparison for such a sudden stop is the one that occurred in the fall of 2008, following Lehman’s bankruptcy. In our opinion, the global economic impact of the current sudden stop is shaping up to be worse than the one that occurred in 2008. That said, we are taking profits on our short position in EM equities. This position – recommended on January 30, 2020 – has produced a 30% gain.   EM share prices have reached the long-term support that acted as the ultimate floor during the bear markets in 1997-‘98, 2001-‘02, 2007-‘08 and 2015. Our decision to take profits reflects investment discipline. The MSCI EM stock index in US dollar terms has reached our target. In addition, this decision is consistent with two important indicators that we follow and respect: 1. EM stocks have become meaningfully cheap. Chart I-1 illustrates that our cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for EM equities is about one standard deviation below its fair value – the same level when the EM equity market bottomed in 1998, 2008 and 2015. Chart I-1EM Equities Are Cheap According To The Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio For this EM CAPE ratio to reach 1.5 standard deviations below its fair value – the level that is consistent with EM’s 2001-02 lows – EM share prices need to drop another 15%. 2. In term of the next technical support, EM share prices have reached the long-term support that acted as the ultimate floor during the bear markets in 1997-‘98, 2001-‘02, 2007-‘08 and 2015 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2EM Share Prices Are At Their Long-Term Support While share prices are likely to undershoot, it is risky to bet on a further decline amid current extremely elevated uncertainty and market volatility. The Global Downturn Will Be Worse Than In Late 2008 Odds are that the current global downturn is shaping up to be worse than the one that occurred in late 2008. From a global business cycle perspective, the current sudden halt is beginning from a weaker starting point. Global trade growth was positive back in August-September 2008 – just prior to the Lehman bankruptcy – despite the ongoing US recession (Chart I-3A). In comparison, global trade was shrinking in December 2019, before the COVID-19 outbreak (Chart I-3B). Chart I-3AGlobal Trade Growth Was Positive In September 2008… Chart I-3B…But Was Negative In December 2019   This is because growth in EM and Chinese economies was still very robust in the middle of 2008. Moreover, the economies of EM and China were structurally very healthy and were anchored by solid fundamentals. Still, the blow to confidence emanating from the crash in global financial markets and plunge in US domestic demand in the fall of 2008 produced major shockwaves in EM/Chinese financial markets. Provided the ongoing negative confidence shock and lingering uncertainty persist, odds are that the risk premium will initially overshoot before settling down. Consistently, risk markets will undershoot in the interim. This is in contrast with current cyclical growth conditions and structural economic health, both of which are very poor in EM/China going into this sudden stop.   In China, economic growth in January-February 2020 was much worse than at the trough of the Lehman crisis in the fourth quarter of 2008. Chart I-4 reveals that industrial production, auto sales and retail sales volumes all contracted in January-February 2020 from a year ago. The same variables held up much better in the fourth quarter of 2008 (Chart I-4). Business activity in China is recovering in March, but from very low levels. Reports and evidence from the ground suggest that many companies are operating well below their ordinary capacity – the level of economic activity remains well below March 2019 levels. US real GDP, consumer spending and capital expenditure shrunk by 4%, 2.5% and 17% at the trough of 2008 recession (Chart I-5). Odds are that these variables will plunge by an even greater magnitude in the coming months as the US reinforces lockdowns and public health safety measures. Chart I-4China Business Cycle Was Much Stronger In Q4 2008 Than Now Chart I-5US Growth At Trough Of 2008 Recession   Chart I-6US Small Caps: Overlay Of 2008 And 2020 About 50% of consumer spending in the US is attributed to people over 55 years of age. Provided COVID-19’s fatality rate is high among the elderly, odds are this cohort will not risk going out and spending. How bad will domestic demand in the US be? It is impossible to forecast with any certainty, but our sense is that it will plunge by more than it did in the late 2008-early-2009 period, i.e., by more than 4% (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Interestingly, the crash in US small-cap stocks resembles the one that occurred in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy (Chart I-6). If US small-cap stocks follow their Q4 2008 - Q1 2009 trajectory, potential declines from current levels will be in the 10%-18% range. Bottom Line: The current halt in economic activity and impending global recession will be worse than the one that took place in late 2008. Reasons Not To Jump Into The Water…Yet Even though EM equities have become cheap and oversold and we are booking profits on our short position in EM stocks, conditions for a sustainable rally do not exist yet: So long as EM corporate US dollar bond yields are rising, EM share prices will remain under selling pressure (Chart I-7). Corporate bond yields are shown inverted in this chart. Chart I-7EM Stocks Fall When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise Chart I-8Chinese And Emerging Asian Corporate Bond Yields Are Spiking The selloff in both global and EM credit markets began only a few weeks ago from very overbought levels. Many investors have probably not yet trimmed their positions. Hence, EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads and yields will likely rise further as liquidation in the global and EM credit markets persists. Consistently, bond yields for Chinese offshore corporates as well as emerging Asian high-yield and investment-grade corporates are rising (Chart I-8). EM local currency bond yields have also spiked recently as rapidly depreciating EM currencies have triggered an exodus of foreign investors. Rising local currency bond yields are not conducive for EM share prices (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EM Equities Drop When EM Local Bond Yields Rise EM ex-China currencies correlate with commodities prices (Chart I-10). Both industrial commodities and oil prices have broken down and have further downside. The path of least resistance for oil prices is down, given anemic global demand and our expectation that Russia and Saudi Arabia will not reach any oil production cutting agreement for several months (please refer to our discussion on this topic below). Finally, our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio1 is in free fall and will likely reach its 2015 lows before troughing (Chart I-11). This ratio tightly correlates with EM share prices, and the latter remains vulnerable to further downside as long as this ratio is falling. Chart I-10EM Currencies Move In Tandem With Commodities Prices Chart I-11More Downside In Risk-On/ Safe-Haven Currency Ratio   Bottom Line: Although we are taking profits on the short EM equity position, we continue to recommend short positions in a basket of EM currencies – BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW – versus the US dollar. Liquidation in EM fixed-income markets has been sharp, but the duration has been short –only a few weeks. Large losses will trigger more outflows from EM fixed-income markets. Stay defensive for now. What We Do Know And What We Cannot Know Amid such extreme uncertainty, it is critical for investors to distinguish between what we know and what we cannot know. What we cannot know: With regards to COVID-19: The speed of its spread, the ultimate number of victims it claims and – finally – its impact on consumer and business confidence and psyche. Related to lockdowns: Their duration in key economies. These questions will largely determine this year’s economic growth trajectory: Will it be V-, U-, W-, or L-shaped? Unfortunately, no one knows the answers to the above questions to have any certainty in projecting this year’s global growth. The key factor that gives Russia an advantage over Saudi Arabia in terms of its ability to deal with a negative terms-of-trade shock is not only its better fiscal position but also its ability to depreciate its currency. What we do know: Authorities in all countries will stimulate aggressively so long as financial markets are rioting. Nonetheless, these stimulus measures will not boost growth immediately. With entire countries locked down and plunging consumer and business confidence, stimulus will not have much impact on growth in the near term. In brief, all policy stimulus will boost growth only when worries about the pandemic subside and the economy begins to function again. Both are not imminent. Hence, we are looking at an air pocket with respect to near-term global economic growth. As we argued in our March 11 report titled, Unraveling Of The Policy Put, the pre-coronavirus financial market paradigm – where stocks and credit markets were priced to perfection because of the notion that policymakers would not allow asset prices to drop – has unravelled.   In recent weeks, policymakers around the world have announced plans to deploy massive amounts of stimulus, yet the reaction of financial markets has been underwhelming. The reason is two-fold: Both demand shrinkage and production shutdowns have just started, and they will run their due course regardless of announced policy stimulus measures. Equity and credit markets were priced for perfection before this selloff, and investors are in the process of recalibrating risk premiums. Provided the ongoing negative confidence shock and lingering uncertainty persist, odds are that the risk premium will initially overshoot before settling down. Consistently, risk markets will undershoot in the interim. Bottom Line: DM’s domestic demand downturn is still in its initial phase, and there is little foresight in terms of the pandemic’s evolution. These are natural forces, and any stimulus policymakers enact are unlikely to preclude them from occurring. Reflecting the economic contraction and heightened uncertainty, the selloff in risk assets will likely continue for now. Do Not Bet On An Early Resuscitation Of OPEC 2.0 As we argued in our March 11 report, Russia is unlikely to make a deal with Saudi Arabia to restrain oil output in the immediate term. Russia may agree to restart negotiations, but it will not agree to reverse its position for some time. Both nations will be increasing crude output (Chart I-12). As a result, a full-fledged oil market share war is underway. Consistently, crude prices have experienced a structural breakdown (Chart I-13).  Chart I-12The Largest Oil Producers Are Ramping Up Output Chart I-13Structural Breakdown In Oil Prices   The key factor that gives Russia an advantage over Saudi Arabia in terms of its ability to deal with a negative terms-of-trade shock is not only its better fiscal position but also its ability to depreciate its currency. Russia has a flexible exchange rate, which will allow the currency to depreciate in order to soften the blow from lower oil prices on the real economy and fiscal accounts. The Russian economy and financial system have learned to operate with recurring major currency depreciations. Saudi Arabia has been running a fixed exchange rate regime since 1986 and cannot use currency depreciation to mitigate the negative terms-of-trade shock on its end. Even though Russia’s fiscal budget break-even oil price is much lower than that of Saudi Arabia’s, it is not the most important variable to consider in this confrontation. The fiscal situation in both Russia and Saudi Arabia will not be a major problem for now. Both governments can issue local currency and US dollar bonds, and there will be sufficient demand for these bonds from foreign and local investors. This is especially true with DM interest rates sitting at the zero-negative territory. Falling oil prices and downward pressure on exchange rates will trigger capital outflows in both countries. Russia has learned to live with persistent capital flight. In the meantime, capital outflows will stress Saudi Arabia’s financial system and, eventually, its real economy. This is in fact the country’s key vulnerability. We will be publishing a Special Report on Saudi Arabia in the coming weeks.  Bottom Line: Do not expect a quick recovery in oil prices. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, RUB, CLP, MXN & ZAR total return indices relative to average of CHF & JPY total returns.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Policy Responses: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a full-blown global crisis and recession. Governments and central bankers worldwide are now responding with aggressive monetary easing and fiscal stimulus. Markets will not respond positively to such stimulus, however, until there is some visibility on the true depth, and duration, of the economic downturn. Fixed Income Strategy: With a global recession now a certainty, bond yields will remain under downward pressure and credit spreads should widen further. Given how far yields have already fallen, we recommend emphasizing country and credit allocation in global bond portfolios, while keeping overall duration exposure around benchmark levels. Model Portfolio Changes: Following up on our tactical changes last week, we continue to recommend overweighting government debt versus spread product. Specifically, overweighting US & Canadian government bonds versus Japan and core Europe, and underweighting US high-yield and all euro area and EM credit. Feature In stunning fashion, the sudden stop in the global economy due to the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a rapid return to crisis-era monetary and fiscal policies. The battle has now shifted to trying to fill the massive hole in global private sector demand left by efforts to contain the spread of the virus. It is unlikely that lower interest rates and more quantitative easing can mitigate the negative growth effects from travel bans, closing of bars and restaurants, and full scale lockdowns of cities. Fiscal policy, combined with efforts to boost market liquidity and ease the coming collapse of cash flows for the majority of global businesses, are the only plausible options remaining. It is unlikely that lower interest rates and more quantitative easing can mitigate the negative growth effects from travel bans, closing of bars and restaurants, and full scale lockdowns of cities. While the speed of these dramatic policy moves is unprecedented, the reason for them is obvious. Plunging equities and surging corporate bond credit spreads are signaling a global recession, but one of uncertain depth and duration given the uncertainties surrounding the spread of COVID-19 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCan Crisis-Era Monetary Policies Be Effective During A Pandemic? Chart 2Risk Assets Will Not Bottom Until New COVID-19 Cases Ex-China Peak The ability for policymakers to calibrate stimulus measures is pure guesswork at this point. The same thing goes for investors who see zero visibility on global growth, with the full extent of the virus yet to be felt in large economies like the United States and Germany – even as new cases in China, where the epidemic began, approach zero. The response from central bankers has been swift and bold – rapid rate cuts, increased liquidity programs for bank funding and increased asset purchases. The fact that global financial markets have remained volatile, even after what is a clear coordinated effort from policymakers, highlights how the unique threats to growth from the COVID-19 pandemic may be beyond fighting with traditional demand-side stimulus measures. We continue to recommend a cautious near-term investment stance, particular with regards to corporate bond exposure, until there is clear evidence that the growth rate of new COVID-19 cases outside China has peaked (Chart 2). Policymakers Throw The Kitchen Sink At The Problem The market moves and policy announcements have come fast and furious this past week, from virtually all major economies. We summarize some of the moves below: United States The Fed cut rates by -100bps in a Sunday night emergency move, taking the funds rate back to the effective lower bound of 0% - 0.25%. Importantly, Fed Chair Powell made it clear at his press conference that negative rates are not on the table, suggesting that we may have seen the last of the rate cuts for this cycle. A new round of quantitative easing (QE) was also announced, with purchases of $500 billion of Treasury securities and $200 billion of agency MBS that will occur in the “coming months”; Powell hinted that those amounts could be increased, if necessary (Chart 3). The MBS purchases are a clear effort to help bring down mortgage rates, which have not declined anywhere near as rapidly as US Treasury yields during the market rout (bottom panel). The Fed also cut the discount window rate – the rate at which banks can borrow from the Fed for periods of up to 90 days – by -150bps, bringing it down to 0.25%. The Fed said it is “encouraging banks to use their capital and liquidity buffers” – essentially telling banks to hold less cash for regulatory purposes. The Fed also reduced the rate on its US dollar swap lines with other central banks. The new rate is OIS +25bps. Coming on top of the massive increase in existing repo lines last week, the Fed is attempting to ensure that banks, both in the US and globally, that need USD funding have more liquidity available to support lending. Already, there are signs of worsening liquidity in the bank funding markets, like widening FRA-OIS spreads, but also evidence of illiquidity in financial markets like wide bid-ask spreads on longer-maturity US Treasuries and the growing basis between high-yield bonds and equivalent credit default swaps (Chart 4). Chart 3A Return To Fed QE Chart 4Market Liquidity Issues Forced The Fed's Hand Turning to fiscal policy, the full response of the Trump administration is still being formed, but a major $850bn spending package has been proposed that would provide tax relief for American households and businesses while also including a $50bn bailout of the US airline industry. This comes on top of previously announced plans to offer free testing for the virus, paid sick leave, business tax credits and a temporary suspension of student loan interest payments. Chart 5The ECB Has Limited Policy Options Euro Area The European Central Bank (ECB) unexpectedly made no changes to policy interest rates last week. It opted instead to increase asset purchases by €120bn until the end of 2020 (both for government bonds and investment grade corporates), while introducing more long-term refinancing operations (LTROs) to “provide a bridge” to the targeted LTRO (TLTRO-3) that is set to begin in June. The terms of TLTRO-3 were improved, as well; banks that accessed the liquidity to maintain existing lending could do so at a rate up to -25bps below the current ECB deposit rate of -0.5%, for up to 50% of the existing stock of bank loans. The ECB obviously had to do something, given the coordinated nature of the global monetary policy response to COVID-19. Yet the decisions taken show that the ECB is much more limited in its ability to ease policy further, with interest rates already negative, asset purchases approaching self-imposed country limits and, most worryingly, inflation expectations falling to fresh lows (Chart 5). The bigger responses to date have come on the fiscal front, with stimulus packages proposed by France (€45bn), Italy (€25bn), Spain (€3bn) and the European Commission (€37bn). The biggest news, however, came from Germany which has offered affected businesses tax breaks and cheap loans through the state development bank, KfW – the latter with an planned upper limit of €550bn (and with the German government assuming a greater share of risk on those new KfW loans). The German government has also vaguely promised to temporarily suspend its so-called “debt brake” to allow deficit financing of virus-related stimulus programs, if necessary. Other Countries The Bank of England cut interest rates by -50bps last week, while also lowering capital requirements for UK banks by allowing use of counter-cyclical buffers for lending. On the fiscal side, a £30bn package was introduced last week that included a tax cut for retailers, cash grants to small business, sick pay for those with COVID-19 and extended unemployment benefits. The Bank of Japan held an emergency meeting this past Sunday night, announcing no changes in policy rates but doubling the size of its ETF purchase program to $56 billion a year to $112 billion, while also increasing purchases of corporate bonds and commercial paper. The central bank also announced a new program of 0% interest loans to increase lending to businesses hurt by the virus. The Bank of Canada delivered an emergency -50bps cut in its policy rate last Friday, coming soon after the -50bp reduction from the previous week. The central bank also introduced operations to boost the liquidity of Canadian financial markets. The Canadian government also announced a fiscal package of up to C$20bn, including increased money for the state business funding agencies. The Reserve Bank of Australia did not cut its Cash Rate last week, which was already at a record-low 0.5%. It did, however, signal that it would begin a quantitative easing program for the first time, and introduce Fed-like repo operations, to provide more liquidity to the economy and local financial markets. The Australian government has also announced A$17bn of fiscal stimulus. Fiscal packages have also been introduced in New Zealand (where the Reserve Bank of New Zealand just cut its policy rate by -75bps), Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, and South Korea. To date, China has leaned more on monetary and liquidity measures – lowering interest rates and cutting reserve requirements – rather than a big fiscal stimulus package. Will all these policy measures be enough to offset the hit to global growth from COVID-19 and help stabilize financial markets? It is certainly a good start, particularly in countries with low government and deficit levels that have the fiscal space for even more stimulus, like Germany, Australia and Canada (Chart 6). Given these competing forces of global recession and monetary policy exhaustion on one side, but with increasingly more expansive fiscal policy on the other, we recommend a neutral (at benchmark) stance on overall global duration exposure on both a tactical and strategic basis. The ability to calibrate the necessary policy response is impossible to assess without knowing the full impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy – including the size of related job losses and corporate defaults/bankruptcies. Policymakers are likely to listen to the combined message of financial markets – equity prices, credit spreads and government bond yields. The low level of yields and flat yield curves, despite near-0% policy rates across the developed world (Chart 7), suggests that investors see monetary policy as “tapped out”, leaving fiscal stimulus as the only way to fight the economic war against COVID-19. Chart 6At Global ZIRP, The Policy Focus Shifts To Fiscal Chart 7Are Bond Yields Discounting A Global Liquidity Trap? Given these competing forces of global recession and monetary policy exhaustion on one side, but with increasingly more expansive fiscal policy on the other, we recommend a neutral (at benchmark) stance on overall global duration exposure on both a tactical and strategic basis. Bottom Line: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a full-blown global crisis and recession. Governments and central bankers worldwide are now responding with aggressive monetary easing and fiscal stimulus. Markets will not respond positively to such stimulus, however, until there is some visibility on the true depth, and duration, of the economic downturn. Corporate Bonds In The US & Europe – Stay Tactically Defensive Chart 8This Crisis Is Different Than 2008 The COVID-19 global market rout has generated levels of market volatility not seen since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The US VIX index of option-implied equity volatility spiked to a high of 84, while the equivalent German VDAX measure reached a shocking high of 93. Equity valuations in both the US and Europe remain much higher on a forward price/earnings ratio basis compared to the troughs seen in 2008, even after the COVID-19 bear market. Yet even though volatility has returned to crisis-era extremes, and corporate credit has sold off hard in both the US and Europe, credit spreads remain well below the 2008 highs (Chart 8). Nonetheless, the credit selloff seen over the past few weeks has still been intense. Both investment grade and high-yield spreads have blown out, and across all credit tiers in both the US (Chart 9) and euro area (Chart 10). Even the highest-rated segments of the corporate bond universe have seen spreads explode, with AAA-rated investment grade spreads having doubled in both the US and Europe. Chart 9Broad-Based Spread Widening For Both Investment Grade... Chart 10...And High-Yield With the COVID-19 pandemic tipping the global economy into recession, it is not clear that the spread widening seen to date has been enough to compensate for the typical surge in downgrades and defaults seen during recessions – even though spreads do look wide on a duration-adjusted basis. With the COVID-19 pandemic tipping the global economy into recession, it is not clear that the spread widening seen to date has been enough to compensate for the typical surge in downgrades and defaults seen during recessions – even though spreads do look wide on a duration-adjusted basis.  One of our favorite metrics to value corporate bonds is to look at option-adjusted spreads, adjusted for interest rate duration risk. We call this the 12-month breakeven spread, as it measures the amount of spread widening over one year that would leave corporate bond returns equal to those of duration-matched US Treasuries. We then look at the percentile rankings of those breakeven spreads versus their history as one indicator of corporate bond value. Chart 11US Corporates Look Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis For the US, the 12-month breakeven spreads for the overall Bloomberg Barclays investment grade and high-yield indices are in the 82nd and 97th percentiles, respectively (Chart 11). This suggests that the latest credit selloff has made corporate debt quite cheap, although only looking through the prism of spread risk rather than potential default losses. Another of our preferred valuation metrics for high-yield debt is the duration-adjusted spread, or the high-yield index option-adjusted spread minus default losses. We then look at that default-adjusted spread versus its long-run average (+250bps) as a measure of high-yield value. To assess the current level of spreads, we use a one-year ahead forecast of the expected default rate using our own macro model. Over the past 12 months, the high-yield default rate was 4.5% and our macro model is currently calling for a rise to 6.2%. That estimate, however, does not yet include the certain hit to corporate profits from the COVID-19 recession. By way of comparison, the default rate peaked at 11.2% during the 2001/02 default cycle and at 14.6% during the 2008 financial crisis. In Chart 12, we show the historical default rate, our macro model for the default rate, and the history of the default-adjusted spread. We also show what the default-adjusted spread would look like in four different scenarios for the default rate over the next 12 months: 6%, 9%, 11% and 15%. The placement of these numbers in the bottom panel of Chart 12 indicates where the Default-Adjusted Spread will be if each scenario is realized. Chart 12US High-Yield Is Not Cheap On A Default-Adjusted Basis Right now, our expectation is that there will be a virus driven US recession, but it will be shorter in magnitude than past recessions; this suggests a peak default rate closer to 9%. Such a scenario would still be consistent with a positive default-adjusted spread and likely positive excess returns for US high-yield relative to US Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. However, if a default rate similar to that seen during past recessions (11% or 15%) is realized, that would lead to a negative default-adjusted spread. Adding up both pieces of our valuation framework suggests that, while US high-yield spreads offer value on a duration-adjusted basis, spreads do not compensate enough for potential default losses if the US recession lasts longer than we expect. Thus, we recommend a tactical underweight position in US high-yield until we see better visibility on the severity, and duration, of the US recession. Adding up both pieces of our valuation framework suggests that, while US high-yield spreads offer value on a duration-adjusted basis, spreads do not compensate enough for potential default losses if the US recession lasts longer than we expect.  As for euro area corporates, spreads for both investment grade and high-yield do look relatively wide on a breakeven spread basis, although less so than US credit (Chart 13). However, with the World Health Organization declaring Europe as the new epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, the harsh containment measures seen in Italy, Germany, France and elsewhere – coming from a starting point of weak overall economic growth – suggest that euro area spreads need to be wider to fully reflect downgrade and default risks. Chart 13Euro Area Corporates Look A Bit Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis We recommend a tactical underweight allocation to both euro area corporate debt and Italian sovereign debt, as spreads have room to reprice wider to reflect a deeper recession (Chart 14). Chart 14Stay Underweight Euro Area Spread Product Bottom Line: Corporate bond spreads on both sides of the Atlantic discount a sharp economic slowdown, but the odds of a deeper recession – and more spread widening - are greater in Europe relative to the US. A Quick Note On Recent Changes To Our Model Bond Portfolio In last week’s report, we made several adjustments to our model bond portfolio recommended allocations on a tactical (0-6 months) basis.1 Specifically, we downgraded our overall recommended exposure to global spread product to underweight, while increasing the overall allocation to government debt to overweight. The specific changes made to the model bond portfolio are presented in tables on pages 14 & 15. Within the country allocation of the government bond side of the portfolio, we upgraded US and Canada (markets more sensitive to changes in global bond yields, and with central banks that still had room to ease policy) to overweight, while downgrading core Europe to underweight and Japan to maximum underweight (both markets less sensitive to global yields and with no room to cut rates). On the credit side of the portfolio, we downgraded US high-yield to underweight (with a 0% allocation to Caa-rated debt), while also downgrading euro area investment grade and high-yield debt to underweight. We also lowered allocations to emerging market USD denominated debt, both sovereign and corporate, to underweight. We left the allocation to US investment grade debt at neutral, as the other reductions left our overall spread product allocation at the desired level (35% versus the 43% spread product weighting in our custom benchmark portfolio index). In terms of the specific weightings, the portfolio is now +11% overweight US fixed income versus the benchmark, coming most through US Treasury exposure. The portfolio is now -7% underweight euro area versus the benchmark, equally thorough government bond and corporate debt exposure. The portfolio is now also has a -7% weight in Japan versus the benchmark, entirely from government bonds. Note that these weightings represent a tactical allocation only, as we are recommending a defensive stance on spread product exposure given the near-term uncertainties over COVID-19 and global growth. On a strategic (6-12 months) horizon, however, we are neutral overall spread product exposure versus government bonds. Corporate bond spreads already discount a sharp economic slowdown and some increase in defaults. However, the rapid shift to aggressive monetary and fiscal easing by global policymakers to combat the virus will likely limit the duration and, potentially, the severity of the global slowdown currently discounted in wide credit spreads.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Train Is Empty", dated March 10, 2020, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns