Japan

Highlights German bunds and Swiss bonds are no longer haven assets. The haven assets are the Swiss franc, Japanese yen, and US T-bonds. Gold is less effective as a haven asset. During this year’s coronavirus crash, the gold price fell by -7 percent. As such, our haven asset of choice for a further demand shock would be the 30-year T-bond, whose price rose by 10 percent during the crash. Technology and healthcare are the two sectors most likely to contain haven equities. Fractal trade: long Polish zloty versus euro. German Bunds And Swiss Bonds Are No Longer Haven Assets Chart of the WeekGold Is Tracking The US 30-Year T-Bond Price... But The T-Bond Is The Better Haven Asset Gold Is Tracking The US 30-Year T-Bond Price... But The T-Bond Is The Better Haven Asset Gold Is Tracking The US 30-Year T-Bond Price... But The T-Bond Is The Better Haven Asset European investors have been left defenceless. German bunds and Swiss bonds used to be the safest of haven assets. You used to be able to bet your bottom dollar – or euro or Swiss franc for that matter – that the bond prices would rally during a demand shock. Not in 2020. When the global economy and stock markets collapsed from mid-February through mid-March, the DAX slumped by -39 percent. Yet the German 10-year bund price, rather than rallying, fell by -2 percent, while the Swiss 10-year bond price fell by -4 percent.1  The lower limit to bond yields is around -1 percent. The reason is that German and Swiss bond yields are close to the practical lower limit to yields, which we believe is around -1 percent (Chart I-2). This means that German and Swiss bond prices cannot rise much, though they can theoretically fall a lot. Chart I-2German And Swiss Bond Yields Are Near Their Practical Lower Bound German And Swiss Bond Yields Are Near Their Practical Lower Bound German And Swiss Bond Yields Are Near Their Practical Lower Bound The behaviour of German bunds and Swiss bonds during the current crisis contrasts with previous episodes of market stress when their yields were unconstrained by the -1 percent lower limit. During the heat of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the 10-year bund price rallied by 12 percent. Likewise, during the frenzy of the global financial crisis in 2008, the 10-year bund price rallied by 7 percent (Chart I-3 - Chart I-5). Chart I-3German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2008 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2008 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2008 Crash Chart I-4German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2011 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2011 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2011 Crash Chart I-5German And Swiss Bonds Did Not Protect Investors During The 2020 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Did Not Protect Investors During The 2020 Crash German And Swiss Bonds Did Not Protect Investors During The 2020 Crash The defencelessness of European investors can also be illustrated via a ‘balanced’ 25:75 portfolio containing the DAX and 10-year German bund. The balanced portfolio theory is that a large weighting to bonds should counterbalance a sharp sell-off in equities, thereby protecting the overall portfolio. The theory worked well… until now. In this year’s coronavirus crisis, the 25:75 DAX/bund portfolio suffered a loss of -13 percent. This is substantially worse than the loss of -2 percent during the euro debt crisis in 2011, and the loss of -7 percent during the global financial crisis in 2008 (Chart I-6 - Chart I-8). Chart I-6A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 7 Percent During The 2008 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 7 Percent During The 2008 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 7 Percent During The 2008 Crash Chart I-7A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 2 Percent During The 2011 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 2 Percent During The 2011 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 2 Percent During The 2011 Crash Chart I-8A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 13 Percent During The 2020 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 13 Percent During The 2020 Crash A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 13 Percent During The 2020 Crash What Are The Haven Assets? The lower limit to the policy interest rate – and therefore bond yields – is around -1 percent, because -1 percent counterbalances the storage costs of holding physical cash or other stores of value. If banks passed a deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, the depositors would flee into other stores of value. But if banks did not pass a deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, it would wipe out the banks’ net interest (profit) margin. Either way, a deeply negative policy rate would destroy the banking system. German and Swiss bond prices cannot rise much. German and Swiss bond yields are close to the -1 percent lower limit, meaning that the bond prices are close to their upper limit. Begging the question: what are the haven assets whose prices will rise and protect long-only investors when economic demand slumps? We can think of three. The Swiss franc. The Japanese yen (Chart I-9). US T-bonds. Chart I-9The Swiss Franc And Japanese Yen Are Haven Assets The Swiss Franc And Japanese Yen Are Haven Assets The Swiss Franc And Japanese Yen Are Haven Assets During the coronavirus crash, the 10-year T-bond price rallied by 4 percent while the 30-year T-bond price rallied by 10 percent (Chart I-10). Compared with German bund and Swiss bond yields, US T-bond yields were – and still are – further from the -1 percent lower limit. The good news is that long-dated T-bonds can still protect investors during a demand shock, although be warned that the extent of protection diminishes as yields get closer to the lower limit. Chart I-10Long-Dated US T-Bonds Are Haven Assets Long-Dated US T-Bonds Are Haven Assets Long-Dated US T-Bonds Are Haven Assets What about gold? As gold has a zero yield, it becomes relatively more attractive to own as the yield on other haven assets declines and turns negative. In fact, through the last three years, the gold price has been nothing more than a proxy for the US 30-year T-bond price (Chart of the Week). But gold is an inferior haven asset. During the coronavirus crash, the gold price fell by -7 percent, meaning it did not offer the protection that T-bonds offered. As such, our haven asset of choice for a further demand shock would not be gold. It would be the 30-year T-bond. What Are The Haven Equities? Many investors still use (root mean squared) volatility as a metric of investment risk. There’s a big problem with this. Volatility treats price upside the same as price downside. This is unrealistic. Nobody minds the price upside, they only care about the downside! Hence, a truer metric of risk is the potential for short-term losses versus gains. This truer measure of risk is known as negative asymmetry, or negative skew. In the twilight zone of ultra-low bond yields, bond prices take on this unattractive negative skew. As German bunds and Swiss bonds have taught us this year, bond prices can suffer losses, but they cannot offer gains. This means that bonds become riskier investments relative to other long-duration investments such as equities whose own negative skew remains relatively stable. The upshot is that the prospective return offered by equities must collapse. This is because both components of the equity return – the bond yield plus the equity risk premium – shrink simultaneously.  Equity valuations rise as an exponential function of inverted bond yields. Given that valuation is just the inverse of prospective return, the effect is that equity valuations rise as an exponential function of inverted bond yields. Chart I-11 illustrates this exponentiality by showing that technology equity multiples have tightly tracked the inverted bond yield plotted on a logarithmic scale. Chart I-11Technology Valuations Are Exponentially Sensitive To The (Inverted) Bond Yield Technology Valuations Are Exponentially Sensitive To The (Inverted) Bond Yield Technology Valuations Are Exponentially Sensitive To The (Inverted) Bond Yield Unfortunately, not all equities will benefit from this powerful dynamic. Equities must meet two crucial conditions to justify this exponential re-rating. One condition is that their sales and profits must be relatively resilient in the face of the current coronavirus induced demand shock. And they should not be at risk of a structural discontinuity, as is likely for say airlines, leisure and many other old-fashioned cyclicals. A second condition is that their cashflows must be weighted further into the future, so that their ‘net present values’ are much more geared to the decline in bond yields. Equities that meet these two conditions are likely to benefit the most from the ongoing era of ultra-low bond yields. And the two equity sectors that appear the biggest beneficiaries are technology and healthcare. In the coronavirus world, these two sectors will likely contain the haven equities. Stay structurally overweight technology and healthcare. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to go long the Polish zloty versus the euro. The profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss are set at 2 percent. Most of the other open trades are flat, though long Australian 30-year bonds versus US 30-year T-bonds and Euro area personal products versus healthcare are comfortably in profit.  The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-12PLN/EUR PLN/EUR PLN/EUR When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 From February 19 through March 18, 2020. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights Fed/BoE NIRP: It is too soon for either the Fed or Bank of England to consider a move to a negative interest rate policy (NIRP), even with US and UK money markets flirting with pricing in that outcome. Lessons from “NIRP 1.0”: In the countries that did go to negative rates in 2014-16 (Japan, Switzerland, the euro area, Sweden and Denmark), there existed some combination of weak economies, near-0% inflation, anemic credit growth or unwanted currency appreciation. Negative rates were needed to help fight those trends by driving down longer-term bond yields. NIRP 2.0?: Among the major countries without negative rate policies in effect (the US, UK, Canada and Australia), there is no evidence that longer-term borrowing rates need to fall further to boost credit growth, even in the midst of deep recessions. However, additional strength of the stubbornly resilient US dollar could be the deflationary shock that eventually forces the Fed into NIRP. Feature Chart 1NIRP 2.0 Would Trigger A Surge Of Negative Yielding Bonds NIRP 2.0 Would Trigger A Surge Of Negative Yielding Bonds NIRP 2.0 Would Trigger A Surge Of Negative Yielding Bonds Within a 20-month window in 2014-16, the central banks of Japan, Sweden, the euro area, Switzerland and Denmark all cut policy interest rates to below 0% - where they remain to this day. Fast forward to 2020, in the midst of a global pandemic and deep worldwide recession that has already forced major developed market central banks to cut rates close to 0%, there is now increased speculation that the negative interest rate policy (NIRP) club might soon get a few new members. The Federal Reserve has been front and center in that group. Fed funds futures contracts had recently priced in slightly negative rates in 2021, despite Fed Chair Jerome Powell repeatedly saying that a sub-0% funds rate was not in the Fed’s plans. The Bank of England (BoE) has also seen markets inch toward pricing in negative rates, although BoE officials have been more open to the idea of negative rates as a viable policy choice. Even the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has suggested that negative rates may be needed there soon. An expansion of the list of countries that have moved to negative rates, beyond the “NIRP 1.0” group of 2014-16, has the potential to drive down global bond yields even further. Already, there is $11 trillion of negative yielding debt within the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate index, representing 20% of the total (Chart 1) If there is a shift to negative rates in the potential “NIRP 2.0” group of major developed economies with policy rates now near 0% – a list that includes the US, the UK, Canada and Australia – then the amount of negative yielding debt worldwide will soar to new highs. An expansion of the list of countries that have moved to negative rates, beyond the “NIRP 1.0” group of 2014-16, has the potential to drive down global bond yields even further. In this report, we take a look at the conditions that led the NIRP 1.0 countries to shift to negative rates in the middle of the last decade, to see if any similarities exist in non-NIRP countries today. We conclude that the conditions are not yet in place for a shift to sub-0% policy rates in the US, the UK, Canada or Australia – all countries where central banks still have other policy tools available to provide stimulus before resorting to negative rates. How Negative Interest Rates Can “Work” To Revive Growth Broadly speaking, central banks around the world have had difficulty meeting their inflation targets since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The main reason for this has been sub-par economic growth, much of which is structural due to aging demographics and weak productivity. Since central bankers must stick to their legislated inflation targeting mandates, they are forced to cut rates when economic growth and inflation are too low. If real economic growth remains weak for structural reasons, then central banks can enter into a cycle of continually cutting rates all the way to zero, or even below zero, in order to try and prevent low inflation from becoming entrenched into longer-term inflation expectations. If growth and inflation continue to languish even after policy rates have reached 0%, then other tools must be used to ease monetary conditions to try and stimulate economies. These typically involve driving down longer-term borrowing rates (bond yields) through dovish forward guidance on future monetary policy, bond purchases through quantitative easing (QE) and, if those don’t work, moving to negative policy interest rates. A nice summary indicator to identify this intertwined dynamic of real economic growth and inflation is to look at the trend growth rate of nominal GDP. Chart 2 shows the policy interest rates three-year annualized trend of nominal GDP growth for the NIRP 1.0 countries, dating back to before the 2008 crisis. Japan stands out as the weakest of the group, with trend nominal growth contracting during and after the 2009 recession, while struggling to reach even +2% since then. The euro area, Sweden and Switzerland all enjoyed +5% nominal growth prior to 2008, before a plunge to the 1-2% range during and after the recession. After that, the three countries had varying degrees of economic success. Between 2016 and 2019, Sweden saw trend nominal growth between 4-5%, while the euro area struggled to achieve even +3% nominal growth and Switzerland maintained a Japan-like pace. Chart 2Fewer Tools Left For NIRP 1.0 Countries To Boost Growth Fewer Tools Left For NIRP 1.0 Countries To Boost Growth Fewer Tools Left For NIRP 1.0 Countries To Boost Growth Chart 3NIRP 2.0 Candidates Can Still Expand QE First NIRP 2.0 Candidates Can Still Expand QE First NIRP 2.0 Candidates Can Still Expand QE First The European Central Bank (ECB), Swiss National Bank (SNB), the Bank of Japan (BoJ) and Sweden’s Riksbank all cut policy rates aggressively in 2008/09, helping spur a recovery in nominal growth. The central banks had to keep rates lower for longer because of structurally weak growth, leaving far less capacity to ease aggressively in response to the growth downturn a few years later. Eventually, the ECB, SNB, BoJ and Riksbank all went to negative rates between June 2014 and February 2016. The BoJ and SNB, facing persistent headwinds from strengthening currencies, also resorted to aggressive balance sheet expansion to provide additional monetary stimulus – trends that have continued to this day, with both central banks having balance sheets equal to around 120% of GDP. The experience of these four NIRP 1.0 countries showed that the move to negative rates was a process that began in the 2008 financial crisis. Central banks there were unable to raise rates much, if at all, after the recession, leaving little ammunition to fight the varying growth slowdowns suffered between 2012 and 2016. Eventually, rates had to be cut below 0% which, combined with QE, helped generate lower bond yields, weaker currencies and, eventually, a pickup in growth and inflation. Looking at the NIRP 2.0 candidate countries, nominal GDP growth has also struggled since the financial crisis, unable to stay much above 3-4% in the US, Canada and the UK. Only Australia has seen trend growth reach peaks closer to 5-6% (Chart 3). The Fed, BoE, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and Bank of Canada (BoC) all also cut rates aggressively in 2008/09, with the Fed and BoE doing QE buying of domestic bonds. Rates were left at low levels after the crisis in the US and UK, with only the RBA and, to a lesser extent, the BoC hiking rates after the recession ended. When growth slowed again in these countries during the 2014-16 period, the RBA and BoC did lower policy rates, but negative rates were avoided by all four central banks. Today, nominal growth rates have collapsed because of the COVID-19 lockdowns that have shuttered much of the world economy. Central banks that have had any remaining capacity to cut policy rates back to 0% have done so, yet this recession has already become so deep that additional declines in rates may be necessary to stabilize unemployment and inflation. The experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries shows that negative rates can also be effective in boosting growth – especially in countries suffering unwanted currency strength. One way to see the problem that monetary policymakers are now facing is by looking at Taylor Rule estimates of appropriate interest rate levels (Charts 4 and 5). Given the rapid surge in global unemployment rates to levels that, in some cases, have not been seen since the Great Depression (Chart 6), alongside decelerating inflation, Taylor Rule implied policy rates are now deeply negative in the US (-5.6%), Canada (-2.9%) and euro area (-1.7%).1 Taylor Rules show that moderately negative rates are also needed in Sweden (-0.5%), Switzerland (-0.2%) and Japan (-0.2%). Only in Australia (+1.3%) and the UK (+0.3%) is the Taylor Rule indicating that negative rates are not currently required. Chart 4Taylor Rule Says More Rate Cuts Needed Here … Taylor Rule Says More Rate Cuts Needed Here ... Taylor Rule Says More Rate Cuts Needed Here ... Chart 5… But Rates Are Appropriate Here ... But Rates Are Appropriate Here ... But Rates Are Appropriate Here Chart 6The Main Reason Why Taylor Rule Implied Policy Rates Have Plunged The Main Reason Why Taylor Rule Implied Policy Rates Have Plunged The Main Reason Why Taylor Rule Implied Policy Rates Have Plunged Among the potential NIRP 2.0 candidates, the negative rate option has been avoided and aggressive QE balance sheet expansion has been pursued by all of them – including the BoC and RBA who avoided asset purchase programs in 2008/09. Balance sheet expansion can be an adequate substitute for policy interest rate cuts by helping drive down longer-term bond yields and borrowing rates, which helps spur credit demand and, eventually, economic growth. Yet the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries shows that negative rates can also be effective in boosting growth – especially in countries suffering unwanted currency strength. How negative rates worked for the NIRP 1.0 countries For the ECB (Chart 7), BoJ (Chart 8), Riksbank (Chart 9) and SNB, the path from negative policy rates in 2014-16 to, eventually, faster economic growth and inflation followed a similar process: Chart 7The Euro Area's Negative Rates Experience The Euro Area's Negative Rates Experience The Euro Area's Negative Rates Experience Chart 8Japan's Negative Rates Experience Japan's Negative Rates Experience Japan's Negative Rates Experience Chart 9Sweden's Negative Rates Experience Sweden's Negative Rates Experience Sweden's Negative Rates Experience Moving to negative policy rates resulted in a sharp decline in nominal government bond yields The fall in yields helped trigger currency depreciation Nominal yields fell faster than inflation expectations, allowing real bond yields to turn negative Credit growth eventually began to pick up in response to the decline in real borrowing costs Inflation bottomed out and started to move higher. In Japan, the euro area and Sweden, this process played out fairly rapidly with credit growth and inflation bottoming within 6-12 months of the move to negative rates. Only in Switzerland (Chart 10), where the SNB gave up on currency intervention in January 2015, was the process delayed, as the surge in the currency triggered a move into deeper deflation and higher real bond yields. It took a little more than a year for the deflationary impact of the franc’s surge to fade, allowing real bond yields to decline and credit growth and inflation to bottom out and recover. The implication is clear – negative rates are good for real assets, but troublesome for banks.  Of course, we are talking about the pure economic effect of negative rates as a monetary policy tool. There are side effects of having negative nominal interest rates and deeply negative real bond yields, like surging asset values (especially for real assets like housing). Bank profitability is also negatively impacted by the sharp fall in longer-term bond yields that hurts net interest margins, even with higher lending volumes and reduced non-performing loans. Chart 10Switzerland's Negative Rates Experience Switzerland's Negative Rates Experience Switzerland's Negative Rates Experience Chart 11Negative Rates Are Good For Real Assets Negative Rates Are Good For Real Assets Negative Rates Are Good For Real Assets This can be seen in Charts 11 & 12, which compare the performance of real house prices and bank equities (relative to the domestic equity market) in the years leading up to, and following, the move to negative rates in 2014-16 for the NIRP 1.0 countries. The implication is clear – negative rates are good for real assets, but troublesome for banks. Chart 12Negative Rates Are Bad For Bank Stocks Negative Rates Are Bad For Bank Stocks Negative Rates Are Bad For Bank Stocks Nonetheless, the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries suggests that the potential NIRP 2.0 countries could see similar benefits on growth and inflation – but not before other policy options are exhausted first. Bottom Line: In the countries that did go to negative rates in 2014-16 (Japan, Switzerland, the euro area, Sweden and Denmark), there existed some combination of weak economies, near-0% inflation, anemic credit growth or unwanted currency appreciation. Negative rates were needed to help fight those trends by driving down longer-term bond yields and helping spur credit growth and, eventually, some inflation. Depreciating currencies had a big role to play in generating those outcomes. Negative Rates Are Not Necessary (Yet) In The NIRP 2.0 Countries As discussed earlier, the sharp surge in unemployment because of the COVID-19 global recession means that negative interest rates may now be “appropriate” in the US and Canada, based on Taylor Rules. Negative rates are not needed in the UK and Australia, however, although policy rates need to stay very low in both countries. A similar divergence can be seen in inflation. Headline CPI inflation rates were already under severe downward pressure from the recent collapse in oil prices. The surge in spare economic capacity opened up by the current recession can only exacerbate the disinflation trend. However, the drop in inflation has been more acute in the US and Canada relative to the UK and Australia, suggesting a greater need for the Fed and BoC to be even more stimulative than the BoE or RBA (Chart 13). A renewed breakout of the currency to new cyclical highs could be the deflationary signal that triggers the Fed into an even more aggressive policy response. There is one area where the Fed stands alone in this group. The relentless strength of the US dollar, even as the Fed’s rate cuts have taken much of the attractive carry out of the greenback, hurts US export competitiveness in a demand-deficient recessionary global economy. The strong dollar also acts as a dampening influence on US inflation. A renewed breakout of the currency to new cyclical highs could be the deflationary signal that triggers the Fed into an even more aggressive policy response (Chart 14). This would mirror the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries prior to the move to negative rates, where unwanted currency strength crippled both economic growth and inflation. Chart 13The Threat Of Deflation Could Trigger NIRP The Threat Of Deflation Could Trigger NIRP The Threat Of Deflation Could Trigger NIRP Chart 14Could More USD Strength Drag The Fed Into NIRP? Could More USD Strength Drag The Fed Into NIRP? Could More USD Strength Drag The Fed Into NIRP? For now, the Fed has many other policy options open before negative rates would be seriously considered. The reach of its QE programs could be expanded even further, even including equity purchases. The existing bond QE could be combined with a specific yield target (i.e. yield curve control) for shorter-maturity US Treasuries, helping anchor US yields at low levels for longer. Summing it all up, we do not see the need for any of the NIRP 2.0 candidates to move to negative rates anytime soon. The need for such extreme policies is not yet necessary, though, both in the US and the other NIRP 2.0 candidate countries. Bank lending is expanding at a double-digit pace in the US, and still at a decent 5-7% pace in the UK, Canada and Australia, even in the midst of a sharp recession (Chart 15). This may only be due to the numerous loan guarantees provided by governments as part of fiscal stimulus responses, or it may be related to companies running down credit lines to maintain liquidity. The experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries, though, suggests that credit growth must be far weaker than this to require negative policy rates to push down longer-term borrowing costs. Chart 15These Already Look Very "NIRP-ish" These Already Look Very "NIRP-ish" These Already Look Very "NIRP-ish" Chart 16Too Soon For Global NIRP, Maintain Neutral Global Duration Exposure Too Soon For Global NIRP, Maintain Neutral Global Duration Exposure Too Soon For Global NIRP, Maintain Neutral Global Duration Exposure Summing it all up, we do not see the need for any of the NIRP 2.0 candidates to move to negative rates anytime soon. In terms of investment implications, we continue to recommend an overall neutral stance on global duration exposure, as we see little immediate impetus for yields to move lower because of reduced expectations of future interest rates or inflation (Chart 16). We will continue to watch currency levels and credit growth as a sign that policymakers may need to shift their tone in the coming months. Bottom Line: Among the major countries without negative rate policies in effect (the US, UK, Canada and Australia), there is no evidence that longer-term borrowing rates need to fall further to boost credit growth, even in the midst of deep recessions. However, additional strength of the stubbornly resilient US dollar could be the deflationary shock that eventually forces the Fed into NIRP.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Negative Rates: Coming Soon To A Bond Market Near You? Negative Rates: Coming Soon To A Bond Market Near You? Footnotes 1 Our specification of the Taylor Rule uses unemployment rates relative to full employment (NAIRU) levels as the measure of spare capacity in the economies. For the neutral real interest rate, we use the New York Fed’s estimate of r-star for the US, Canada, the euro area and the UK; while using the OECD’s estimate of potential GDP growth as the neutral real rate measure for countries where we have no r-star estimate (Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and Australia).

Highlights Recommended Allocation Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality The outlook for markets over the next few months is highly uncertain. On the optimistic side, new COVID-19 cases are probably close to peaking (for now), and so equities could continue to rally. But there are many risks too. Growth numbers will be horrendous for some months. Second-round effects (corporate defaults, problems in EM and with euro zone banks, for example) will emerge. We recommend a balanced portfolio, robust both for risk-on rallies and a further sell-off. We stay overweight equities versus bonds. Government bonds will not provide significantly positive returns even in a severe recession. Thus, over the next 12-months, equities are likely to outperform them. But we leaven the equity overweight with a “minimum volatility” strategy, overweight the low-beta US market, and more stable sectors such as Healthcare and Technology. Within bonds, we stay underweight government bonds, and raise Investment Grade credit to overweight, given the Fed’s backstop. Even in a risk-on rally, government yields will not rise quickly so we recommend a neutral stance on duration. The massive stimulus will eventually be inflationary, so we recommend TIPS, which are very cheaply valued. We are overweight cash and gold as hedges against further market turbulence. Among alternatives, macro hedge funds and farmland look attractively defensive now. We would start to look for opportunities in private debt (especially distressed debt) as the recession advances. Commodity futures are attractive as an inflation hedge. Overview Playing The Optionality From the start of the crisis, we argued that markets would bottom around the time when new cases of COVID-19 peaked. At the end of March, there were clear signs that this would happen in April, with Italy and Spain having probably already peaked and the US, if it follows the same trajectory, being only two or three weeks away (Chart 1). Chart 1Close To A Peak In New Cases? Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality But what happens next? A relief rally is likely, as often happens in bear markets – and indeed one probably started with the three-day 18% rise in US equities in the last week of March. Note, for example, the strong rallies in spring 2008 and summer 2000 before the second leg down in those bear markets (Chart 2). Chart 2Mid Bear Market Rallies Are Common Mid Bear Market Rallies Are Common Mid Bear Market Rallies Are Common However, there is still a lot of potential bad news for markets to digest. Global growth has collapsed, as a result of people in many countries being forced to stay at home. US GDP growth in Q2 could fall by as much as 10% quarter-on-quarter (unannualized). Horrendously bad data will come as a shock to investors over the coming months. Despite the unprecedented stimulus measures from central banks and governments worldwide (Chart 3), nasty second-round effects are inevitable. Given the high level of corporate debt in the US, defaults will rise, to perhaps above the level of 2008-9 (Chart 4). EM borrowers have almost $4 trillion of foreign-currency debt outstanding, and will struggle to service this after the rise in the dollar and wider credit spreads. Euro area banks are poorly capitalized and have high non-performing debt levels left over from the last recession; they will be hit by a new wave of bankruptcies. Undoubtedly, there are some banks and hedge funds sitting on big trading losses after the drastic sell-off and stomach-churning volatility. Mid-East sovereign wealth funds will unload more assets to fill fiscal holes left by the collapsed oil price. Chart 3Massive Stimulus Everywhere Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Chart 4Possible Second-Round Effects Possible Second-Round Effects Possible Second-Round Effects     There is also the question of when the pandemic will end. We are not epidemiologists, so find this hard to judge (but please refer to the answers from an authority in our recent Special Report1). The coronavirus will disappear only when either enough people in a community have had the disease to produce “herd immunity,” or there is a vaccine – which is probably 18 months away.  Some epidemiologists argue that in the UK and Italy 40%-60% of the population may have already had COVID-19 and are therefore immune.2 But an influential paper from researchers at Imperial College suggested that repeated periods of lockdown will be necessary each time a new wave of cases emerges3 (Chart 5). Chart 5More Waves Of The Pandemic To Come? Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality At the end of March, global equities were only 23% off their mid-February record high – and were down only 34% even at their low point. That doesn’t seem like enough to fully discount all the potential pitfalls over coming months. This sort of highly uncertain environment is where portfolio construction comes in. We recommend that clients position their portfolios with optionality to remain robust in any likely outcome. There are likely to be rallies in risk assets over coming months, particularly when the coronavirus shows signs of petering out. There is significant asymmetric career risk for portfolio managers here. No portfolio manager will be fired for missing the pandemic and underperforming year-to-date (though some may because their firms go out of business or retrench). But a PM who misses a V-shaped rebound in risk assets over the rest of the year could lose their job.  This will provide a strong incentive to try to pick the bottom. Chart 6Bond Yields Can't Go Much Lower Bond Yields Can't Go Much Lower Bond Yields Can't Go Much Lower Government bond yields are close to their theoretical lows. The 10-year US Treasury yield is 0.6% and it unlikely to fall below 0% even in a severe recession (since the Fed has stated that it will not cut short-term rates below 0%). In other countries, the low for yields has turned out to be around -0.3% to -0.9% (Chart 6). The total return from risk-free bonds, therefore, will be close to zero even in a dire economic environment (Table 1). This means that the call between bonds and equities comes down to whether equity prices will be higher or lower in 12-months. Quite likely, they will be higher. Given this, and the optionality of participating in rebounds, we maintain our overweight on equities versus bonds. We would, however, be inclined to lower our equity weighting in the event of a big rally in stocks over the next few months.   Table 1Not Much Room For Upside From Bonds Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Table 2Bear Markets Are Often Much Worse Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality But there are also many downside risks. In the past two recessions, global equities fell by 50%-60% (Table 2). Despite the much worse economic environment this time, the peak-to-trough decline is so far much more limited. Moreover, valuations are not particularly compelling yet (Chart 7). To leaven our overall overweight on equities, we recommend a “minimum volatility” strategy, with tilts towards the low-beta US market, and some more defensive sectors such as Healthcare and Technology. China and China-related stocks also look somewhat attractive, since that country got over the coronavirus first, and is responding with a big increase in infrastructure spending (Chart 8). To hedge against downside risk, we also leave in place our overweights in cash and gold. Chart 7Equities Are Not Yet Super Cheap Equities Are Not Yet Super Cheap Equities Are Not Yet Super Cheap Chart 8China Infra Spending To Rise China Infra Spending To Rise China Infra Spending To Rise Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking – About The Coronavirus Have We Seen The Bottom In Equity Markets?  Chart 9Watch Closely COVID-19 Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality After hitting a low on March 23, global equities have recovered more than one-third of their loss during this particularly rapid bear market, in response to the massive monetary and fiscal stimulus around the globe. It’s very hard to pinpoint the exact bottom of any equity bear market.  The current one is particularly difficult in two ways: First, it was largely due to the exogenous shock from the COVID-19 pandemic. If history is any guide, we will first need to see a peak in infected cases globally before we can call a true bottom in equities (Chart 9). Second, the massive and coordinated response from central banks and governments around the world is unprecedented, as the global “lockdown” freezes the global economy. It’s encouraging to see the Chinese PMI bouncing back to 52 in March after a sharp drop to deep contraction level in February. However, the bounce back was mostly from production. Both export orders and imports remain weak. US initial jobless claims have skyrocketed to 3.3 million. If the peak of infection in the US follows similar patterns in China and Italy, then it would be another encouraging sign even if the US economic data continued to get worse. BCA Research’s base-case is for this recession to have a U-shaped recovery. This means that equity markets are likely to be range bound until we have a better handle on the future course of the pandemic. As such, we suggest investors actively manage risk by adding to positions when the S&P 500 gets close to 2250 and reducing risk when it gets close to 2750 during the bottoming process. What Will Be The Long-Term Consequences? Maybe it seems too early to think about this, but the coronavirus pandemic will change the world at least as profoundly as did the 1970s inflation, 9/11, and the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Here are some things that might change: Chart 10Government Debt Will Rise Significantly Government Debt Will Rise Significantly Government Debt Will Rise Significantly Government debt levels will rise dramatically, as a result of the huge fiscal packages being (rightly) implemented by many countries. In the US, after the $2 trillion spending increase and a fall in tax revenues, the annual fiscal deficit will rise from 6% of GDP to 15%-20%. Government debt/GDP could exceed the 122% reached at the end of WW2 (Chart 10). Ultimately, central banks will have to monetize this debt, perhaps by capping long-term rates or by buying a substantial part of issuance. This could prove to be inflationary. Households and companies may want to build in greater cushions and no longer live “on the edge”. US households have repaired their balance-sheets since 2009, raising the savings rate to 8% (Chart 11). But surveys suggest that almost one-third of US households have less than $1,000 in savings. They may, therefore, now save more. This could depress consumption further in coming years. Companies have maximized profitability over the past decades, under pressure from shareholders, by keeping inventories, spare cash, and excess workers to a minimum. Given the sudden stop caused by the pandemic (and who is to say that there will not be more pandemics in future), companies may want to protect themselves from future shocks. The inventory/sales ratio, which had been falling for decades, has picked up a little since the GFC (Chart 12). Inventory levels are likely to be raised further. Companies may also run less leveraged balance-sheets, rather than hold the maximum amount of debt their targeted credit rating can bear. This is all likely to reduce long-term profit growth. Chart 11Households May Become Even More Cautious Households May Become Even More Cautious Households May Become Even More Cautious Chart 12Companies Will Run With Higher Inventories Companies Will Run With Higher Inventories Companies Will Run With Higher Inventories The pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of healthcare systems. China still spends only 5% of GDP on health, compared to 9% in Brazil and 8% in South Africa (Chart 13). The lack of intensive care beds and woefully inadequate epidemic plans in the US and other developed countries will also need to be tackled. Healthcare stocks should benefit. Chart 13Healthcare Spending Will Need To Rise Healthcare Spending Will Need To Rise Healthcare Spending Will Need To Rise How Risky Are Euro Area Banks? Chart 14Euro Area Banks Are Quite Fragile Euro Area Banks Are Quite Fragile Euro Area Banks Are Quite Fragile Banks in the euro area have underperformed their developed market peers by over 65% since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart 14, panel 1). Their structural issues – many of which we highlighted in a previous Special Report – remain unsolved.  Euro area banks remain highly leveraged compared to their US counterparts (panel 2). Their exposure to emerging economies is high (panel 3), and they continue to be a major provider of European corporate funding. US corporates, by contrast, are mainly funded through capital markets. The sector is also highly fragmented with both outward and inward M&A activity declining post the GFC. Profitability continues to be a key long-term concern, despite having recently stabilized (panel 4). The ECB’s ultra-dovish monetary stance and negative policy rates do not help banks’ performance either.  Banks’ relative return has been correlated to the ECB policy rate since the GFC (panel 5). Following the coronavirus outbreak, the ECB is likely to remain dovish for a prolonged period. The ECB’s recently announced measures should, however, provide banks with ample liquidity to hold and spur economic activity through increased lending to households and corporates. Absent consolidation in the European banking sector, competition is likely to dampen banks’ profits. Additionally, the severity of the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus outbreak will determine if their significant exposure to emerging economies, the energy sector, and domestic corporates will hurt them further. For now, we would recommend investors underweight euro area banks. Where Can I Get Income In This Low-Yield World? Chart 15The Bear Market Has Unveiled Attractive Income Opportunities The Bear Market Has Unveiled Attractive Income Opportunities The Bear Market Has Unveiled Attractive Income Opportunities For long-term investors who can tolerate price volatility, there is currently an opportunity to invest in high-income securities at relatively cheap prices. Below we list three of our favorite assets to obtain income returns: Dividend Aristocrats: The S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index is composed of S&P 500 companies which have increased dividend payouts for 25 consecutive years or more. In order to provide such a steady stream of income through a such long timeframe, and even provide dividend increases in recessions, the companies in this index need to have a track record of running cashflow-rich businesses. Thus, the risk of dividend cuts is relatively low in these companies. Currently, the Dividend Aristocrat Index has a trailing dividend yield of 3.2% (Chart 15 – top panel). Fallen Angels: As we discussed in our November Special Report, fallen angels have attractive characteristics that separate them from the rest of the junk market. They tend to have longer maturities as well as a higher credit quality than the overall index. Crucially, fallen angels often enter the high-yield index at a discount, since certain institutional investors are forced to sell them when they are no longer IG-rated (middle panel). Thus, selected fallen angels which are not at a substantial risk of default could be a tremendous income opportunity. Currently fallen angels have a yield to worst of 10.65%. Sovereign US dollar EM debt: Our Emerging Markets Strategy service has argued that most EM sovereigns are unlikely to default on their debts, and instead will use their currencies as a release valve to ease financial conditions in their economies. Thus, hard-currency sovereign issues could prove to be attractive income investments if held to maturity. The bottom panel of Chart 15 (panel 3) shows the current yield-to-worst of the EM sovereign hard currency debt that has an overweight rating by our Emerging Markets service. Global Economy Chart 16The Collapse Begins The Collapse Begins The Collapse Begins Overview: The global economy in early January looked on the cusp of a strong manufacturing pickup, driven by the natural cycle and by moderate fiscal stimulus out of China. The coronavirus changed all that. We now face a recession of a severity unseen since the 1930s. The fiscal and monetary response has been similarly rapid and radical. This will tackle immediate liquidity and even solvency risks. But, with consumers in many countries confined to their homes, a recovery is entirely dependent on when the number of new cases of COVID-19 peaks. In an optimistic scenario, this might be in late April or May. On a pessimistic one, the pandemic will continue in waves for several quarters.  US: It is highly likely that the NBER will eventually declare that the US entered recession in March 2020. With many states in lockdown, consumption (which comprises 70% of GDP) will slump: only half of consumption is non-discretionary (rent, food, utility bills etc.); the other half is likely to shrink significantly while lockdowns continue. Judged by the 3.3 million initial claims in the week of March 16-21, unemployment will jump from its February level of 3.5% very rapidly towards 10%. Fiscal and monetary stimulus measures will cushion the downside (enabling households to pay rent and companies to service debt). But whether the recession is V-shaped or prolonged will be dependent on the length of the pandemic. Euro Area: European manufacturing growth was showing clear signs of picking up before the coronavirus pandemic hit (Chart 16 panel 1). But lockdowns in Italy, Spain and other countries will clearly push growth way into negative territory. The severity is clear from the first datapoints to reflect March activity, such as the ZEW survey. The ECB, after an initially disappointing response, has promised EUR750 billion (and more if needed) in bond purchases. The fiscal response so far has been more lukewarm, although Germany has now scrapped its requirement to run a budget surplus. One key question: will the stronger nothern European economies agree to “euro bonds”, joint and severally guaranteed, to finance fiscal spending in the weaker periphery?   Chart 17...With Chinese Data Leading The Way ...With Chinese Data Leading The Way ...With Chinese Data Leading The Way Japan: Japan’s economy was performing poorly even before the coronavirus pandemic, mainly because of the side-effects of last October’s consumption tax hike, and the slowdown in China (Chart 17, panel 2). So far, Japan has seen fewer cases of COIVD-19 than other large countries, but this may just reflect a lack of testing. Japan also has less room for policy response. Government debt is already 250% of GDP. The Bank of Japan has moderately increased purchases of equity ETFs and remains committed to maintaining government bonds yields around 0%. But Japan seems culturally and institutionally unable to roll out the sort of ultra-radical measures taken in other developed economies. Emerging Markets: China’s economy was severely disrupted in January and February, as reflected in an unprecedented collapse of the Caixin Services PMI to 26.5 (Chart 17, panel 3). However, big data (such as traffic congestion) suggest that in March people were gradually returning to work and companies restarting manufacturing operations. Q1 GDP growth will clearly be negative, and growth for the year may be barely above 0%. The authorities are ramping up infrastructure spending, which BCA expects to grow by 6-8% this year.4 Interest rates have also fallen below their 2015 levels, but not yet to their 2009 lows. Both fiscal and monetary policy are likely to be eased further. Elsewhere in Emerging Markets, the key question is whether central banks will cut rates to support rapidly weakening economies, or keep rates steady to prop up collapsing currencies. This is not an easy choice. Interest Rates: Central banks in developed markets have cut rates to their lowest possible levels with the Fed, for example, slashing from 1.25%-1.5% to 0%-0.25% within just 10 days in March. The Fed has signalled that it will not go below zero. Short-term policy rates globally, therefore, have essentially hit their lower bounds. Long-term rates have been volatile, with the 10-year US Treasury yield swinging down to 0.6% before jumping to 1.2%. While uncertainty continues, long-term risk-free rates are unlikely to rise substantially and, in the event of a prolonged severe recession, we would see the US 10-year yield falling to zero – but no lower. Global Equities Chart 18Is The V-Shaped Recovery Sustainable? Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality What’s Next?  Global equities lost 32.8% year-to-date as of March 23, 2020. All countries and sectors in our coverage were in the red. Even the best performing country (Japan) and the best performing global sector (Consumer Staples) lost 26.7% and 23.2% respectively.  From March 24 to March 26, however, equities made the best three-day gains since the Great Depression, recouping about one-third of the loss,  even though US initial jobless claims came in at 3.3 million and also the US reported a higher number of cumulative infected people than China, with a much higher number of deaths per million people (Chart 18). So have we reached the bottom of the bear market? Is this “V-shaped” recovery sustainable? How should an investor construct a multi-asset global portfolio that’s sound for the next 9-12 months given the uncertainty associated with COVID-19 and the massive monetary and fiscal stimulus around the world? Based on our long-held philosophy of taking risks where risks will most likely be rewarded, we are most comfortable taking risk at the asset class level, by overweighting equities versus bonds, together with overweights in cash and gold as hedges. Within the equity portfolio, we are reducing risk by making the following adjustments: Upgrade US to overweight from underweight financed by downgrading the euro zone to underweight from overweight. Upgrade Tech to overweight, while closing two overweight bets on Financials and Energy and one underweight on consumer staples to benchmark weighting.   Country Allocation: Becoming More Defensive Chart 19US And Euro Area: Trading Places US And Euro Area: Trading Places US And Euro Area: Trading Places In December 2019 we added risk by upgrading the euro area to overweight and Emerging Markets to neutral based on our macro view that the global economy was on its way to recovery.  Data releases in January did show signs of recovery in the global economy. However, the COVID-19 outbreak has changed the global landscape, and we are clearly in a recession now.  When conditions change, we change our recommendations. We must make a judgment call because the economic data will not give us any timely, useful readings for some time to come. Back in December, the key reason to upgrade the euro area was the recovery of China which flows into the exports of the euro area. We think China will continue to stimulate its economy. However, given the global growth collapse, the “flow through” effect to the euro area will be delayed for some time. We prefer to play the China effect directly rather than indirectly. That’s why we maintain the neutral weighting of EM versus DM, but downgrade the euro area to underweight, and upgrade US to overweight. We also note the two following factors: First, as shown in Chart 19, panel 1, the relative performance between the euro area and the US is highly correlated with the relative performance between global Financials and Technology. This is not surprising given the sector composition of the two region’s equity indices. As such, this country adjustment is in line with our sector adjustment of upgrading Technology and downgrading Financials. Second, with a lower beta, US equities provide a better defense when economic uncertainty and financial market volatility are high. The risk to this adjustment, however, is valuation. As shown in panel 4, euro area valuation is extremely cheap compared to the US. However, PMI releases as well as forward earnings estimates are likely to get worse again before they get better, given the region’s reliance on exports to China and the structural issues in its banking system. Global Sector Allocation: Getting Closer To Benchmark Chart 20Reducing Sector Bets Reducing Sector Bets Reducing Sector Bets We make four changes in the global sector portfolio to reduce sector bets, since we do not have a high conviction given market volatility and our house view that recovery out of this recession will be U-shaped. These are downgrading Financials to neutral, while upgrading Technology to overweight. We also close the overweight in Energy and underweight in Consumer Staples, leaving them both at benchmark weighting. Financials: We upgraded Financials in October last year as an upside hedge. This move did not pan out as bond yields plummeted. BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy service upgraded duration to neutral from underweight on March 10 as they do not see a high likelihood for yields to move significantly higher over the next 9-12 months. This does not bode well for Financials’ performance (Chart 20, panel 1). Even though the Fed and other central banks have come in as the lenders of last resort, loan growth could be weak going forward and non-performing loans could increase, especially in the euro area. Valuation, however, is very attractive. Technology: DRAM prices started to improve even before the COVID-19 outbreak. The global lockdown to fight against the pandemic is further spurring demand for both software and hardware, which should support better earnings growth (panel 2). The risk is that relative valuation is still not cheap, even though absolute valuation has come down after the recent selloff. Energy:  The outlook for oil prices is too uncertain. The fight between Saudi Arabia and Russia is weighing on the supply side, while the global lockdown is denting demand prospect. The earnings outlook for energy companies is dire, while valuations are very attractive (panel 3). Consumer Staples: This is a classic defensive sector that does well in recessions. In addition, its relative valuation has improved to neutral from very expensive (panel 4).   Government Bonds Chart 21Stay Aside On Duration Stay Aside On Duration Stay Aside On Duration Upgrade Duration To Neutral. Global bond yields had a wild ride in Q1 as equities plummeted into bear market territory. The 10-year US Treasury yield made an historical low of 0.32% overnight on March 9, then quickly reversed back up to 1.27% on March 18, closing the quarter at 0.67%, compared to 1.88% at the beginning of the quarter (Chart 21). We are already in a recession and BCA’s house view is for a U-shaped recovery. This implies that global bond yields will likely follow a bottoming process similar to global equities, as new infections peak and high-frequency economic data start to recover. As such, we upgrade our duration call to neutral, to be in line with the position of BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy (USBS) service. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds.  The combined effect of the plummet in oil prices and the coronavirus outbreak has crushed inflation expectation to an extremely low level. As shown in Chart 22, the 10-year breakeven inflation rate is currently at 0.95%, 88 bps lower than its fair value. The fair value is estimated based on USBS’s Adaptive Expectations Model.  Investors with a 12-month investment horizon should continue to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries, but those with shorter horizons may be advised to stand aside and wait for the daily number of new COVID-19 cases to reach zero before re-initiating the position. Chart 22TIPS Offer A Ton Of Long-Run Value Extremely Cheap Inflation Protection TIPS Offer A Ton Of Long-Run Value Extremely Cheap Inflation Protection TIPS Offer A Ton Of Long-Run Value Extremely Cheap Inflation Protection   Corporate Bonds Chart 23High Quality Junk High Quality Junk High Quality Junk It is undeniable that the dearth of cashflow caused by the lockdowns will spur a ferocious wave of defaults, particularly in the high-yield sector. It also is not clear that this risk is adequately compensated for. Currently, our US bond strategist believes that spreads are pricing an 11% default rate – in line with the default rate of the 2000/2001 recession. While it is not our base case, a default cycle like 2008, where 14% of companies in the index defaulted is a very clear possibility, as revenues have ground to a halt. However, several positive factors in the junk space must also be considered. Roughly 1% of the high-yield index matures in less than one year, which means that refinancing risk for junk credits should remain relatively subdued (Chart 23, top panel). Moreover, the quality of junk bonds is relatively high compared to previous periods of stress: when the market peaked in 2000 and 2007, Ba-rated credit (the highest quality of high yield) stood at 30% and 37% of the overall index respectively (middle panel). Today this credit quality stands at 49% of the high yield market, indicating a relatively healthier credit profile for junk. Additionally, the high-risk energy sector, which is likely to experience a substantial amount of defaults given the collapse in oil prices, now represents less than 8% of the market capitalization of the whole index (bottom panel). Taking these positive factors into consideration, we believe that a downgrade to underweight is not warranted, and instead we are downgrading high-yield credit from overweight to neutral. What about the investment-grade space? the massive stimulus package announced by the Fed, which effectively allows IG issuers to roll over their entire stock of debt, should provide a backstop to this market. One valid concern is that credit agencies can still downgrade a large number of issuers, making them ineligible to receive support. However, it seems that the credit agencies are aware of how much hinges on their ratings, and are communicating that they will factor the measures taken by various government programs into their credit analysis.5 Thus, considering that spreads are already extended, the Fed is providing unprecedent support and credit agencies are unlikely to knock out many companies out of investment-grade ratings, we are upgrading investment-grade credit from neutral to overweight.   Commodities Chart 24Oil Prices & Politics Do Not Mix Oil Prices & Politics Do Not Mix Oil Prices & Politics Do Not Mix Energy (Overweight): Oil markets were driven by supply/demand dynamics until a third factor, politics, shifted the market equilibrium. The recent clash between Saudi Arabia and Russia led to the breakdown of the OPEC 2.0 coalition and to Brent prices tanking by over 60% to $26 in March. The length of this breakdown is unknown. However, we believe the parties are likely to return to the negotiation table within the next months as the damage to countries which are dependent on oil begins to appear. The fiscal budget breakeven point remains much higher than the current oil price – it is around $83 for Saudi Arabia and $47 for Russia. Weakness in global crude demand will continue to put further downward pressure on prices, until economic activity recovers from the COVID-19 slowdown. Our Commodity & Energy Strategists expect the Brent crude oil price to average $36/bbl, with WTI trading some $3-$4 below that, in 2020 (Chart 24, panels 1 & 2). Industrial Metals (Neutral): Industrial metals prices were on track to pick up until the coronavirus hit global activity at the beginning of the year. Prices face further short-term headwinds as global manufacturing remains suppressed. Once the global social distancing ends and activity resumes, industrial metal prices should pick up as fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending, especially in China, is implemented (panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral):  As the coronavirus spread, global risk assets have tumbled. Over the past 12 months, we have recommended investors increase their allocation to gold as both an inflation hedge and a beneficiary of accommodative monetary policy globally. However, we also recently highlighted that gold was reaching overbought territory and that a pullback was possible in the short-term. Nevertheless, investors should continue to maintain gold exposure to hedge against the eventuality that the pandemic is not contained within the coming weeks (panels 4 & 5).   Currencies Chart 25Competing Forces Pushing The US Dollar In Different Directions Competing Forces Pushing The US Dollar In Different Directions Competing Forces Pushing The US Dollar In Different Directions The USD has gone through a rollercoaster during the coronavirus crisis. Initially, the DXY fell by 4.8%, as rate differentials moved violently against the dollar when the Fed cut rates to zero. But this fall didn’t last long: as liquidity dried up, the cost for dollar funding surged, causing the dollar to skyrocket by almost 8.3%. Since then, the liquidity measures taken by monetary authorities have made the dollar reverse course once more. At this point there are multiple forces pulling the greenback in opposing directions. On the one hand, the collapse in global growth caused by the shutdowns should push the dollar higher. Moreover, momentum – one of the most reliable directional indicators for the dollar – continues to point to further upside (Chart 25, panels 1 and 2). However, the Fed’s generous USD swap lines with other major central banks as well as the massive pool of liquidity deployed have already stabilized funding costs in European and British currency markets, and look poised to do the same in others (Chart 25, panel 3). Thus, since there is no clarity on which force will prevail in this tug of war, we are remaining neutral on the US dollar. That being said, long-term investors can begin to buy some of the most depressed currencies, such as AUD/USD. This cross is currently trading at a 12% discount to PPP according to the OECD – the steepest discount that this currency has had in 17 years. Additionally, our China Investment Strategy projects that China will accelerate infrastructure investment this year to counteract the negative economic effects of the lockdown. This pick up in investment should increase base-metal demand, proving a boost to the Australian dollar in the process.   Alternatives Chart 26Favor Macro Hedge Funds Over Private Equity During Recessions Favor Macro Hedge Funds Over Private Equity During Recessions Favor Macro Hedge Funds Over Private Equity During Recessions Intro: The coronavirus outbreak caused tremendous market volatility and huge declines in liquid assets. Many clients have asked over the past few weeks which illiquid assets make sense in the current environment. To answer that, we stick to our usual recommendation framework, dividing illiquid assets into three buckets: Return Enhancers: Over the past year, we have been recommending clients to pare back private-equity exposure and increase allocation to hedge funds – particularly macro hedge funds, which often outperform other risky alternative assets during economic slowdowns and recessions (Chart 26, panel 1). Private debt – particularly distressed debt – could become a beneficiary of the current environment. The market turmoil will leave some assets heavily discounted, which can provide an opportunity for nimble funds to make investments at attractive valuations. In a previous Special Report, we highlighted Business Development Companies (BDCs) as a liquid alternative to direct private lending.6 They have taken a hit over the past month, even compared to equities and junk bonds. However, their recovery as markets bottom is usually significant (panels 2 & 3). Inflation Hedges: The coordinated “whatever-it-takes” stance implemented by global governments and central banks to mitigate the coronavirus crisis is likely to have inflationary consequences in the long-term. In that environment, investors should favor commodity futures over real estate (panel 4). As global growth reaccelerates in response to stimulus and resumed manufacturing activity over the next 12 months, the USD should weaken, and commodity prices should rise. Volatility Dampeners: Timberland and farmland remain our long-time favorite assets within this bucket. We have previously shown that both assets outperform other traditional and alternative assets during recessions and equity bear markets (panel 5). Farmland particularly should fare well in this environment, being more insulated from the economy, given food’s inelastic demand Risks To Our View Chart 27Dollar Would Fall In A Strong Recovery Dollar Would Fall In A Strong Recovery Dollar Would Fall In A Strong Recovery Since our recommendations are based on a middle course, hedging both upside and downside risks, we need to consider how extreme these two eventualities could be. On the upside, the most optimistic scenario would be one in which the coronavirus largely disappears after April or May. The massive amount of fiscal and monetary stimulus would produce a jet-fuelled rally in risk assets. The dollar has soared over the past few weeks, as a risk-off currency (Chart 27), and would likely fall sharply. This would be very positive for commodities and Emerging Markets assets. The strong cyclical recovery would also help euro zone and Japanese equities relative to the more defensive US. Value stocks and small caps would outperform. Chart 28Could It Get Worse Than 2008 - Or Even 1932? Could It Get Worse Than 2008 - Or Even 1932? Could It Get Worse Than 2008 - Or Even 1932? Downside risks are less easy to forecast. As Warren Buffet wrote in 2002: “you only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.” The shock to the system caused by the coronavirus is certainly larger than the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-9 and could approach that caused by the Great Depression (Chart 28), though hopefully without the egregious policy errors of the latter. It is hard, therefore, to know where problems will emerge: US corporate debt, EM borrowers, and euro zone banks would be our most likely candidates. But there could be others. The oil price is another key uncertainty. Demand could collapse by at least 10% as a result of the severe recession. The breakdown of the production agreement between Saudi Arabia and Russia could produce a supply increase of 4-5%.  Given this, Brent crude would fall to $20 a barrel. That would represent a strong tailwind to global recovery (Chart 29). On the other hand, a rapprochement between Saudi and Russia (and even with regulators in Texas) could push oil prices back up again – a positive for markets such as Canada and Mexico. Chart 29Cheap Oil Boosts Growth Cheap Oil Boosts Growth Cheap Oil Boosts Growth   Footnotes 1   Please see BCA Special Report, "Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers," dated 31 March 2020, available at bcaresearch.com 2   https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042291v1 3    https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf 4    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Chinese Economic Stimulus: How Much For Infrastructure And The Property Market,” dated 25th March 2020, available at cis.bcaresarch.com 5    A release by Moody’s on March 25 stated that their actions “will be more tempered for higher-rated companies that are likely to benefit from policy intervention or extraordinary government support.” 6    Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Private Debt: An Investment Primer,” dated June 6, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights Investment Grade: Investors should overweight investment grade corporate bonds relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities, with a particular focus on bonds that are eligible for the Fed’s purchase programs. High-Yield: Caution is still warranted in the high-yield market. At current levels, spreads do not adequately compensate investors for the coming default cycle. We would recommend buying high-yield if the average index spread rises to a range of 1075 bps – 1290 bps. Fed Purchases: Fed corporate bond purchases will cause investment grade spreads to tighten, particularly out to the 5-year maturity point. However, the program won’t stop the coming onslaught of ratings downgrades. High-Yield Sectors: The Energy, Transportation, Capital Goods, Consumer Cyclical and Consumer Noncyclical sectors are all highly exposed to the looming default cycle. Financials and Utilities look like the best places to hide out. Feature Chart 1Will The Fed's Corporate QE Mark The Top In Spreads? Will The Fed's Corporate QE Mark The Top In Spreads? Will The Fed's Corporate QE Mark The Top In Spreads? The COVID pandemic and associated recession have already caused turmoil in financial markets and prompted a policy response from the Federal Reserve that is unprecedented in its aggressiveness. US investment grade and high-yield corporate spreads widened 280 bps and 764 bps, respectively, to start the year. Then, they tightened by 78 bps and 179 bps, respectively, after the Fed announced it is stepping into the corporate bond market for the first time (Chart 1). Clearly, this is a challenging time for corporate bond investors. But sifting through all the noise, we think there are three key questions to stay focused on: How will the Federal Reserve’s support for the corporate bond market impact spreads? At what level do spreads fully discount the looming default cycle? What sectors within the corporate bond market are most/least at risk of experiencing large-scale defaults? What Can The Fed Hope To Accomplish By Buying Corporate Debt? As part of its package of monetary policy stimulus measures to combat the US COVID-19 recession, the Fed has undertaken a dramatic new step to try and lower borrowing costs for US businesses – the outright buying of US investment grade corporate bonds. The main details of these new programs are as follows: The Fed will purchase investment grade corporate bonds, loans and related exchange-traded funds (ETFs) as part of these programs. Bonds can be purchased in the primary (newly-issued) and secondary markets. The purchases will not be held on the Fed’s balance sheet. Instead, two off-balance sheet Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), one for primary market purchases and one for secondary market purchases, will buy the bonds. Both SPVs are initially funded by the US Treasury and will be levered up via loans from the Fed. The 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; that list of companies 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 secondary market SPV will buy bonds with maturities 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% of the outstanding shares of any single ETF. Through the primary market facility, any eligible company can “borrow” from the Fed, through bond purchases or direct loans, an amount greater than its maximum outstanding debt (bonds plus loans) on any day over the past twelve months. Specifically: 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 potentially roll over their entire stocks of debt through this program, plus some net new borrowing. With the primary market facility, 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 (any company choosing this option cannot do share buybacks or make dividend payments). These programs are set to run until 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. With this structure, it is technically the US Treasury department that bears the initial credit risk through its seed funding of each SPV. The BoJ was the first of the major central banks to start buying corporate bonds. This structure is different than the recent corporate bond QE programs of the European Central Bank (ECB), Bank of England (BoE) and Bank of Japan (BoJ), where the credit risk was directly taken onto the central bank balance sheets. But from an investment perspective, the difference in structure between the Fed’s corporate bond buying program and that of other central banks is nothing more than a technicality. It is still worthwhile to see if any lessons can be learned from these other countries.     The Corporate Bond Buying Experience Of Other Central Banks The BoJ was the first of the major central banks to start buying corporate bonds, in a program that began in February 2009 and continued until October 2012. The program initially involved only the purchase of very high-quality corporate debt (rated A or higher) and only for maturities up to one year. The pool of eligible bonds was later increased to allow for lower credit quality (rated BBB or higher) and longer maturities (up to three years). The BoJ ended up buying a total of 3.2 trillion yen (US$30 billion) of bonds during that program, representing nearly 50% of total Japanese investment grade nonfinancial debt (Chart 2). Credit spreads tightened modestly over the life of the program, particularly for the shorter maturity debt that the BoJ was directly buying.1 Research from the BoJ concluded that the corporate bond buying did improve liquidity for the bonds that were eligible for the program, although there was no discernable pickup in overall Japanese corporate bond issuance.2 The BoE started its Corporate Bond Purchase Scheme (CBPS) in August 2016, as part of a package of stimulus measures to cushion the economic blow from the UK’s stunning vote to leave the European Union. The CBPS bought £10bn of UK nonfinancial investment grade corporate bonds over a period of 18 months, with ratings as low as BBB-. This was a relatively modest share of all eligible nonfinancial bonds (4.7%), but UK credit spreads did tighten over the life of the program (Chart 3). The BoE’s own research has determined that the spread tightening was due to lower downgrade/default risk premiums, and that the program triggered a surge in investment grade issuance in the weeks and months following its launch.3 Chart 2The BoJ's Corporate Bond Buying Experience The BoJ's Corporate Bond Buying Experience The BoJ's Corporate Bond Buying Experience Chart 3The BoE's Corporate Bond Buying Experience The BoE's Corporate Bond Buying Experience The BoE's Corporate Bond Buying Experience The ECB announced its Corporate Sector Purchase Program (CSPP) in March 2016, with the actual bond purchases beginning three months later. This was an expansion of the ECB’s overall Asset Purchase Program that had previously been focused on government debt. Like the BoJ and BoE programs, only nonfinancial debt of domestic euro area companies rated BBB- or higher was eligible. The ECB did buy bonds across a wide maturity spectrum of 1-30 years. The ECB’s purchases in the first 18 months of the CSPP were sizeable, between €60-80bn per month, reaching a cumulative total of nearly 20% of the stock of eligible bonds (Chart 4). This not only drove credit spreads tighter for bonds in the CSPP, but also pushed spreads lower for bonds that were not directly purchased by the ECB, like bank debt. The ECB described this as evidence of a strong “portfolio balance effect”, where investors who sold their bonds to the central bank ended up redeploying the proceeds into other parts of the euro area corporate bond market.4  One major difference between the ECB CSPP and the BoJ and BoE programs was that the ECB could conduct the necessary purchases in the primary market, if necessary. This represented a major new source of funding for smaller euro area companies that did not previously issue corporate bonds, preferring to get most of their debt financing through bank loans. As evidence of this, the year-over-year growth rate of euro area corporate bond issuance soared from 2.5% to 10% in the first year of the CSPP (Chart 5). Chart 4The ECB's Corporate Bond ##br##Buying Experience The ECB's Corporate Bond Buying Experience The ECB's Corporate Bond Buying Experience Chart 5ECB Primary Market Buying Spurred A Boom In Issuance ECB Primary Market Buying Spurred A Boom In Issuance ECB Primary Market Buying Spurred A Boom In Issuance Investment Conclusions Applying these lessons to the US, the first conclusion we reach is that Fed corporate bond purchases will tighten spreads for eligible securities. In this case, eligible securities include all investment grade rated US corporate bonds with maturities less than five years. In effect, the Fed’s primary market facility could be thought of as adding an agency backing to these eligible bonds since the Fed has effectively guaranteed that this debt can be rolled over and that bond investors will be made whole. It’s noteworthy that last week saw a record amount of new investment grade corporate bond issuance as firms rushed to take advantage of the program.    Second, we should see some positive knock-on effects on spreads of ineligible investment grade securities, i.e. investment grade corporate bonds with maturities greater than five years. The impact will not be as large as for eligible securities, but since many of the same issuers operate at both ends of the curve, long-maturity spreads will benefit at the margin from any reduction in interest expense for the issuer. Third, any trickle-down effects to high-yield spreads will be much smaller. No high-yield issuers can benefit from the program, and while the Fed could eventually open up its facilities to include high-yield debt, we wouldn’t count on it. We suspect the moral hazard of “bailing out the junk bond market” would simply be a step too far for the Federal Reserve. We should see some positive knock-on effects on spreads of ineligible securities. In sum, we would advocate an overweight allocation to US investment grade corporate bonds today – especially on securities eligible for the Fed’s programs. We do not recommend a similar overweight stance on US high-yield, where spreads will continue to fluctuate based on the fundamental default outlook (see section titled “Assessing The Value In High-Yield” below). Can The Fed Re-Steepen US Credit Spread Curves And Prevent Ratings Downgrades? Prior to the Fed’s announcement of the new programs, the US investment grade corporate spread curve had become inverted, with shorter maturity spreads exceeding longer maturity ones. This has historically been a harbinger of increased investment grade downgrades and high-yield defaults (Chart 6). With the Fed’s new programs focusing on bonds with maturities of up to five years, the Fed’s buying can potentially lead to a re-steepening of the investment grade spread curve by driving down shorter maturity spreads. Chart 6Inverted US Credit Spread Curves Are Flashing An Ominous Message Inverted US Credit Spread Curves Are Flashing An Ominous Message Inverted US Credit Spread Curves Are Flashing An Ominous Message Already, the investment grade spread curve has begun to disinvert in the first week of the Fed’s programs (Chart 7). At the same time, the bond rating agencies are moving aggressively to adjust credit opinions in light of the US recession. Already, downgrades from Moody’s and S&P are outpacing upgrades by a 3-1 ratio year-to-date – a pace not seen since the depths of the financial crisis, according to Bloomberg.5  Chart 7The Fed's New Programs Are Already Helping Disinvert Investment Grade Spread Curves The Fed's New Programs Are Already Helping Disinvert Investment Grade Spread Curves The Fed's New Programs Are Already Helping Disinvert Investment Grade Spread Curves The Fed’s actions should be successful at re-steepening the investment grade credit curve. However, we doubt that they will have much impact on ratings decisions. While the Fed can reduce borrowing costs and prevent default by rolling over maturing debt for investment grade issuers, this has a relatively minor impact on corporate balance sheet health. In fact, the Fed's programs will only improve balance sheet health for firms that just roll over existing debt loads and don’t take on any new debt. Any firm that takes on new debt during this period will come out of the crisis with more leverage than when it entered. All else equal, that should warrant a downgrade. Bottom Line: Fed corporate bond purchases will cause investment grade spreads to tighten, particularly out to the 5-year maturity point. However, the program won’t stop the coming onslaught of ratings downgrades. Assessing The Value In High-Yield What Kind Of Default Cycle Is Already “In The Price”? High-yield debt may not benefit from the Fed’s corporate bond-buying programs. But, as in every other cycle, there will come a time when spreads discount the full extent of future default losses. At that point it will be appropriate to increase allocations to the sector. Our Default-Adjusted Spread will guide us as we make that determination. Our Default-Adjusted Spread is the excess spread available in the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index after subtracting realized default losses. Specifically, we calculate the Default-Adjusted Spread as: Index OAS – [Default Rate x (1 – Recovery Rate)] The default and recovery rates apply to the 12-month period that follows the index spread reading. For example, the Default-Adjusted Spread for January 2019 uses the index OAS from January 2019 and default losses incurred between February 2019 and January 2020. Table 1 shows that there is a strong link between the Default-Adjusted Spread and excess High-Yield returns relative to duration-matched Treasuries. Specifically, we see that losses are a near certainty if the Default-Adjusted Spread is negative and that return prospects are poor for spreads below 150 bps. A Default-Adjusted Spread above its historical average of 250 bps is an obvious buying opportunity, while a spread above 400 bps virtually guarantees strong returns. Table 1The Default-Adjusted Spread & High-Yield Excess Returns Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis This helps clarify the task at hand. We must make an assumption about what the default and recovery rates will be for the next 12 months, then apply those assumptions to the current index spread. The resulting Default-Adjusted Spread will tell us if High-Yield bonds are worth a look. Table 2 shows the Default-Adjusted Spread that results from different combinations of default and recovery rates.6 For example, a 10% default rate and 35% recovery rate together imply a Default-Adjusted Spread of 271 bps, suggesting an attractive buying opportunity. Table 2Default-Adjusted Spread (BPs) Given Different Assumptions For Default And Recovery Rates Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis What Sort Of Default Cycle Should We Expect? To answer this question we turn to Table 3. Table 3 lists periods since the mid-1980s when the default rate rose above 4%, along with several factors that influence the level of default losses: The magnitude of the economic downturn, proxied by the worst year-over-year real GDP growth reading recorded during that timeframe. The duration of the economic downturn, measured as the number of quarters from the peak to trough in real GDP. Nonfinancial corporate leverage – measured as total debt divided by book value of equity – at the cycle peak. Table 3A Brief History Of Default Cycles Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Alongside these determining factors, the table also shows the peak 12-month default rate seen during the cycle and the recovery rate that occurred alongside it. First, we notice a strong relationship between the magnitude of the economic shock and the peak default rate. Meanwhile, corporate leverage does a better job explaining the recovery rate. Notice that recoveries were greater in 2008 than in 2001, despite 2008’s larger economic shock. Turning to the current situation, our base case assumption is that we will see severe economic contraction in Q1 and Q2 of this year followed by some recovery in the third and fourth quarters. All told, 2020 annual GDP growth could be close to the -3.9% seen in 2008, though the duration of the peak-to-trough economic shock will be only two quarters instead of six.7 Based on the historical comparables listed in Table 3, this sort of economic shock could generate a peak default rate somewhere between 11% and 13%. As for recoveries, nonfinancial corporate leverage is currently higher than during any of the prior episodes in our study. It follows that the recovery rate will be very low, perhaps on the order of 20%-25%. Turning back to Table 2, we see that our default and recovery rate assumptions imply a Default-Adjusted Spread somewhere between -119 bps and +96 bps. This is too low to be considered a buying opportunity. A Default-Adjusted Spread above its historical average of 250 bps is an obvious buying opportunity, while a spread above 400 bps virtually guarantees strong returns. Table 4 flips this analysis around and shows the option-adjusted-spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index that would generate a Default-Adjusted Spread of 250 bps based on different assumptions for the default and recovery rates. Recall that we consider a Default-Adjusted Spread of 250 bps or above as a buying opportunity. Using the aforementioned default and recovery rate assumptions, we would see a buying opportunity in high-yield if the average index spread rose to a range of 1075 bps – 1290 bps, or above. As of Friday’s close, the index option-adjusted spread was 921 bps. Table 4High-Yield Index Spread (BPs) That Would Imply A Buying Opportunity* In Different Default Loss Scenarios Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Bottom Line: High-yield spreads do not discount the full extent of the looming default cycle and will not benefit from the Fed’s asset purchase programs. Investors should stay cautious on high-yield for now and look to increase allocations when the average index spread moves into a range of 1075 bps to 1290 bps. Which High-Yield Sectors Are Most Exposed? Even during a period of large-scale defaults, sector and firm selection are vital in the high-yield bond market. In fact, you could argue that sector selection becomes even more important during a default cycle, as some sectors bear the brunt of default losses while others skate through relatively unscathed. To wit, Chart 8plots the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate alongside a diffusion index that shows the percentage of 30 high-yield industry groups – as defined by Moody’s Investors Service – that have a trailing 12-month default rate above 4%. Even at the peaks of the default cycles during the last two recessions, only 47% and 63% of industry groups experienced significant default waves. Chart 8Sector Selection Is Vital In A Default Cycle Sector Selection Is Vital In A Default Cycle Sector Selection Is Vital In A Default Cycle To help identify which sectors are most at risk during the current default cycle, we consider how the 10 main high-yield industry groups, as defined by Bloomberg Barclays, stack up on three crucial credit metrics: The share of firms rated Caa Growth in par value of debt outstanding since the last recession Change in the median firm’s net debt-to-EBITDA ratio since the last recession8 Charts A1-A10 in the Appendix show how the three credit metrics for each industry group have evolved over time. In the remainder of this report we compare the sectors against each other across each of the above three dimensions. Note that Box 1 provides a legend for the sector name abbreviations used in Charts 9, 10 and 11. Box 1Sector Abbreviations Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Chart 9OAS Versus Share Of Caa-Rated Debt Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Chart 10OAS Versus Debt Growth Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis   Chart 11OAS Versus Net Debt-To-EBITDA Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis Share Of Caa-Rated Debt Even during a large default cycle the bulk of default losses will be borne by firms rated Caa and below. In Chart 9, we see that if we ignore the outlying Technology, Transportation and Energy sectors, there is a fairly linear relationship between credit spreads and the share of firms rated Caa in each sector. Transportation and Energy currently trade at very wide spreads because those sectors’ revenues are heavily impacted by the current crisis. Technology spreads remain low because, despite the high percentage of Caa-rated debt, the sector has one of the lower net debt-to-EBITDA ratios (see Chart A6). All in all, Chart 9 suggests that Capital Goods, Communications, Consumer Cyclicals and Consumer Noncyclicals all carry a large proportion of low-rated debt. In contrast, Financials and Utilities appear much safer. Debt Growth Another good way to assess which sectors are most likely to experience defaults is to look at which sectors added the most debt during the economic recovery (Chart 10). On that note, the rapid levering-up of the Energy sector clearly sticks out. Beyond that, Capital Goods, Consumer Noncyclicals and Technology also added significant amounts of debt during the recovery. In contrast, the Utilities sector actually reduced its debt load. Change In Net Debt-to-EBITDA Finally, it’s important to note that simply adding debt does not necessarily put a sector at greater risk of default if earnings are rising even more quickly. For this reason we also look at recent trends in net debt-to-EBITDA (Chart 11). Here, we see that wide spreads in Energy and Transportation are justified by large increases in net debt-to-EBITDA. Conversely, Financials and Communications have seen improvement. Bottom Line: Based on a survey of three important credit metrics: The Energy, Transportation, Capital Goods, Consumer Cyclical and Consumer Noncyclical sectors are all highly exposed to the looming default cycle. In contrast, Financials and Utilities look like the best places to hide out. Appendix Chart A1Basic Industry Credit Metrics Basic Industry Credit Metrics Basic Industry Credit Metrics Chart A2Capital Goods Credit Metrics Capital Goods Credit Metrics Capital Goods Credit Metrics Chart A3Consumer Cyclical Credit Metrics Consumer Cyclical Credit Metrics Consumer Cyclical Credit Metrics Chart A4Consumer Non-Cyclical Credit Metrics Consumer Non-Cyclical Credit Metrics Consumer Non-Cyclical Credit Metrics Chart A5Energy Credit Metrics Energy Credit Metrics Energy Credit Metrics Chart A6Technology Credit Metrics Technology Credit Metrics Technology Credit Metrics Chart A7Transportation Credit Metrics Transportation Credit Metrics Transportation Credit Metrics Chart A8Communications Credit Metrics Communications Credit Metrics Communications Credit Metrics Chart A9Utilities Credit Metrics Utilities Credit Metrics Utilities Credit Metrics Chart A10Financial Institutions Credit Metrics Financial Institutions Credit Metrics Financial Institutions Credit Metrics     Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes  1 The March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan created a lot of short-term credit spread volatility, but even then, shorter-maturity bonds saw less spread widening than the overall index. 2 https://www.imes.boj.or.jp/research/papers/english/18-E-04.pdf 3  https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2017/q3/corporate-bond-purchase-scheme-design-operation-and-impact 4 The ECB described this effect in a 2018 report that can be accessed here: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecb/ebart201803_02.en.pdf 5  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-26/s-p-moody-s-cut-credit-grades-at-fastest-pace-since-2008-crisis 6 Calculations are based on the index spread as of market close on Friday March 27. 7 For more details on BCA’s assessment of the economic outlook please see Global Investment Strategy Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook, “World War V”, dated March 27, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 8 Median net debt-to-EBITDA is calculated from our bottom-up sample of high-yield firms that consists of all the firms in the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index for which data are available. Data are retrieved on a quarterly basis and the sample is adjusted once per year based on changes in the composition of the Barclays indexes. As of Q2 2019, this sample includes 354 companies.

Highlights The pillars of dollar support continue to fall, but the missing catalyst is visibility on the trajectory of global growth. For now, we remain constructive on the DXY short term, but bearish longer term. Market internals and currency technicals have become supportive of pro-cyclical trades in recent days. There is tremendous value in the Norwegian krone, Swedish krona and British pound. Buy a basket of NOK and SEK against a basket of USD and EUR. Feature Markets are getting some semblance of calm after being flooded with vast amounts of monetary and fiscal stimulus. The DXY index, having breached the psychological 100 level, failed to break above 103, and is now in a volatile trading pattern of lower intra-day highs. The message is that the Federal Reserve’s injection of liquidity, along with generous USD swap lines for major central banks, has eased the funding crisis (Chart I-1).1 All eyes will now begin to focus on fiscal support, especially from the US. As we go to press, US leaders have agreed to a $2 trillion fiscal package. As we highlighted last week, a central bank cannot do much about an economy in a liquidity trap, but governments can step in and be spenders of last resort. While fiscal stimulus is a welcome catalyst, the impact on the economy is likely to be felt a bit later. More importantly, until the number of new Covid-19 cases peak, the global economy will remain in shutdown, and visibility on the recovery will be opaque (Chart I-2). This provides an air pocket in which the dollar can make new highs, especially if the slowdown is not of a garden variety, but a deep recession. Chart I-1A Shortage Of Dollars A Shortage Of Dollars A Shortage Of Dollars Chart I-2Some Reason For Optimism Some Reason For Optimism Some Reason For Optimism We continue to monitor the behavior of market internals and currency technicals to gauge a shift in market dynamics. Both liquidity and valuation indicators are USD bearish, but as a momentum currency, the dollar will benefit from any signs we are entering a more protracted slowdown. In this report, we use a simple framework for ranking G10 currencies – the macroeconomic environment, valuation and sentiment. There has been a tectonic shift in currency markets over the last few weeks which has uncovered some very compelling opportunities. This is good news for investors willing to stomach near-term volatility. In short, we like the pound, Swedish krona and Norwegian krone. Are Policy Actions Enough? Chart I-3The Dollar And Interest Rates Diverge The Dollar And Interest Rates Diverge The Dollar And Interest Rates Diverge There has been an unprecedented wave of monetary and fiscal stimulus announced in recent weeks.2 This should eventually backstop economic activity. Below we highlight a few key developments, along with our thoughts. USD: The Fed has cut interest rates to zero and announced unlimited QE. As we go to press, a $2 trillion fiscal package has been passed. This represents a much bigger monetary and fiscal package compared to the 2008 Great Recession. The near-term impact will be to boost aggregate demand, but the massive increase in the supply of dollars should lower the USD exchange rate. As a rule of thumb, lower interest rates in the US have usually been bearish for the currency (Chart I-3). EUR: The European central bank has announced a €750 billion package effectively backstopping the peripheral bond market. The good news is that the structural issues in the periphery are much less pronounced than during the 2010-2011 crisis. This is positive for the euro over the longer term, as cheaper funding should boost capital spending and productivity. GBP: The Bank of England has cut interests to almost zero and expanded QE. Meanwhile, there has been an intergenerational shift in the pound. The lesson from the imbroglio in British politics since 2016 is that cable at 1.20 has been the floor for a “hard Brexit” under normal conditions. This makes the latest selloff an indiscriminate liquidation of the pound. On a real effective exchange rate-basis, the pound is close to two standard deviations below its mean since 1965. On this basis, only two currencies are cheaper: the Norwegian krone and Swedish krona. AUD: The Reserve Bank Of Australia cut interest rates to 25 basis points and has introduced QE. The Aussie is now trading below the lows seen during the Great Financial Crisis. This suggests any shock to Aussie growth will have to be larger than 2008 to nudge the AUD lower. CAD: The Bank Of Canada has cut rates to 75 basis points and introduced a generous fiscal package. More may be needed if the downdraft in oil prices persists beyond the near term. We highlighted a few weeks ago how the landscape was rapidly stepping into one of competitive devaluations.3 We can safely assume that we are already into this zone. One end result of competitive devaluations is that as interest rates converge to zero, relative fundamentals resurface as the key drivers of currency performance. In short, the last few weeks have seen long bond yields converge in the developed world (Chart I-4). That means going forward, picking winners and losers will become as much a structural game as a tactical one. From a bird’s eye view, below are a few key indicators we are monitoring.  Chart I-4The Race To Zero The Race To Zero The Race To Zero G10 Basic Balances Chart I-5CHF, EUR, AUD and NOK Are Supported CHF, EUR, AUD and NOK Are Supported CHF, EUR, AUD and NOK Are Supported The basic balance captures the ebb and flow of demand for a country’s domestic assets. Persistent basic balance surpluses are usually associated with an appreciating currency, and vice versa. This is especially important since the rise in offshore dollar funding has been particularly pernicious for deficit countries. Switzerland sports the best basic balance surplus in the G10 universe, followed by the euro area, Australia and then Norway (Chart I-5). Surpluses imply a constant underlying demand for these currencies - either for domestic goods and services or for investment into portfolio assets. The UK and the US rank the worst in terms of basic balances. As for the UK, the basic balance deficit explains why the recent flight to safety hit the pound particularly hard. Net International Investment Position Both Switzerland and Japan have the largest net international investment positions. These tend to buffet their currencies during crises, since foreign assets are liquidated and the proceeds repatriated home. This is at the root of their status as safe-haven currencies. There has been structural improvement in most G10 net international investment positions, especially compared to the US (Chart I-6). Should the returns on those foreign assets be sufficiently high, this will lead to income receipts for surplus countries, providing an underlying boost for their currency. Chart I-6Structural Increase In G10 NIIP Structural Increase In G10 NIIP Structural Increase In G10 NIIP Interest Rates The race to the zero bound has pushed real interest rates into negative territory for most of the developed world. This has also greatly eroded the yield advantage of the US dollar against its G10 peers (Chart I-7). Within the G10 universe, the commodity currencies (Aussie, kiwi and loonie) have become the high yielders in real terms. This yield advantage should help stem structural depreciation in their currencies. Chart I-7Most Of The G10 Has Negative Real Rates Most Of The G10 Has Negative Real Rates Most Of The G10 Has Negative Real Rates Valuation Models One of our favored valuation models for currencies is the real effective exchange rate. The latest downdraft in most G10 currencies has nudged them between one and two standard deviations below fair value (Chart I-8A and Chart I-8B). According to the BIS measure, the Norwegian krone and Swedish krona are currently the cheapest currencies, with the krone trading at more than three standard deviations below its mean fair value. Chart I-8ASome G10 Currencies Are Very Cheap Some G10 Currencies Are Very Cheap Some G10 Currencies Are Very Cheap Chart I-8BSome G10 Currencies Are Very Cheap Some G10 Currencies Are Very Cheap Some G10 Currencies Are Very Cheap Most importantly, despite the recent rise in the US dollar, it is not yet very expensive. The trade-weighted dollar will need to rise by 8% to bring it one standard deviation above fair value. This was a definitive top in the early 2000s. This rise will also knock the euro lower and push many pro-cyclical currencies into bombed-out levels, making them even more attractive over the long term. Chart I-9NOK and SEK Are Deeply Undervalued NOK and SEK Are Deeply Undervalued NOK and SEK Are Deeply Undervalued Other valuation measures corroborate this view: Our in-house purchasing power parity (PPP) models show the US dollar as only slightly overvalued, by 7%. These models adjust the CPI baskets across countries so as to get closer to an apples-to-apples comparison. The cheapest currencies according to the model are the SEK, NOK, AUD and GBP (Chart I-9). The yen is more attractive than the Swiss franc as a safe-haven currency. Our intermediate-term timing models (ITTM) show the dollar as fairly valued. The main ingredients in these models are real interest rate differentials and a risk factor. On a risk-adjusted return basis, a dynamic hedging strategy based on our ITTMs has outperformed all static hedging strategies for all investors with six different home currencies since 2001. According to these models, the Australian dollar and Norwegian krone are the most attractive currencies, while the Swiss franc is the least attractive. Our long-term FX models are also part of a set of technical tools we use to help us navigate FX markets. Included in these models are variables such as productivity differentials, terms-of-trade, net international investment positions, real rate differentials, and proxies for global risk aversion. These models cover 22 currencies, incorporating both G10 and emerging market FX markets. According to these models, the US dollar is at fair value (mostly against the euro), but the yen, the Norwegian krone and the Swedish krona are quite cheap. In a forthcoming report, we will show how valuation can be used as a tool to enhance excess returns in the currency space. For now, the universal message from our models is that the cheapest currencies are the NOK, SEK, AUD and GBP. Speculative Positioning Chart I-10Speculators Have Been Taking Profits Speculators Have Been Taking Profits Speculators Have Been Taking Profits Our favorite sentiment indicator is speculative positioning. More specifically, positioning is quite useful when it is rolling over from an overbought or oversold extreme. Being long Treasurys and the dollar has been a consensus trade for many years now (Chart I-10). According to CFTC data, this has been expressed mostly through the aussie and kiwi, although our bias is that the Swedish krona and Norwegian krone have been the real victims. The key question is whether the unwinding of dollar long positions we have seen in recent days reflects pure profit-taking, or represents a fundamental shift in the outlook for the greenback. Our bias is the former. Net foreign purchases of Treasurys by private investors have reaccelerated anew. Given the momentum of these purchases tends to be persistent over a six-month horizon, it is too early to conclude that dollar gains are behind us. That said, speculative positioning has also uncovered currencies in which investor biases are lopsided. This includes the Australian and New Zealand dollars. Currency Rankings And Portfolio Tweaks The depth and duration of the economic slowdown remain the primary concern for most investors. Should the world economy see a more protracted slowdown than in 2008, then more gains lie ahead for the greenback. This is on the back of a currency that is not too expensive, relative to history. That said, there have been a few currencies that have been indiscriminately sold with the global liquidation in risk assets. These include the Norwegian krone, the British pound and the Swedish krona, among others. To reflect the fundamental shift in both valuation and sentiment indicators, we are buying a basket of the Scandinavian currencies against a basket of both the dollar and euro. Finally, our profit targets on a few trades were hit, and we were stopped out of a few. Please see our trading tables for the latest recommendations. Appendix Table I-1 Which Are The Most Attractive G10 Currencies? Which Are The Most Attractive G10 Currencies? Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “The Dollar Funding Crisis”, dated March 19, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please refer to Appendix Table 1.  3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Are Competitive Devaluations Next?”, dated March 6, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been negative: The Markit manufacturing PMI dropped to 49.2 while the services PMI tanked to 39.1 from 49.4 in March. Initial jobless claims hit 3.3 million, a record high, in the week ended March 20. Nondefense capital goods orders, excluding aircraft, shrank by 0.8% month-on-month in February. The DXY index depreciated by 2.6% this week. The US Senate passed a $2 trillion economic relief package, which is now pending approval by the House. The bill includes direct payments to individuals, US$350 billion in loans to small businesses and investments in medical supplies. The Fed has created a backstop for investment grade bonds by vowing to purchase as many securities as needed to prop up the market. Report Links: The Dollar Funding Crisis - March 19, 2020 Are Competitive Devaluations Next? - March 6, 2020 The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been negative: ZEW economic sentiment crashed to -49.5 from 10.4 while consumer confidence fell to -11.6 from -6.6 in March. The Markit manufacturing PMI decreased to 44.8 from 49.2 while the services PMI tumbled to 28.4 from 52.6 in March. This pulled the composite index down to 31.4 from 51.6 in March. The current account increased to EUR 34.7 billlion from EUR 32.6 billion while the trade balance fell to EUR 17.3 billion in January. The euro appreciated by 2.4% against the US dollar this week. ECB President Lagarde argued for the one-off issuance of “coronabonds,” a shared debt instrument among member economies that pools risk and lowers lending costs for the more indebted nations affected by the pandemic.  Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 Japanse Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been negative: The Jibun bank manufacturing PMI fell to 44.8 from 47.8 in March. The coincident index increased to 95.2 from 94.4 while the leading index fell to 90.5 from 90.9 in January. Imports shrank by 14% while exports shrank by 1% year-on-year in February. The Japanese yen appreciated by 0.9% against the US dollar this week. As expected, the Tokyo Olympics were postponed, striking a further blow to economic activity and the tourism sector. The government is considering a JPY 56 trillion stimulus package that includes cash payments to households and subsidies for small businesses, restaurants and other tourist-related sectors. Report Links: The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been negative: The Markit manufacturing PMI declined to 28 from 51.7 while the services PMI collapsed to 35.7 from 53.2 in March. Retail sales contracted by 0.3% month-on-month in February from an increase of 1.1% in January. Headline CPI grew by 1.7% year-on-year in February. The public sector net borrowing deficit shrank to GBP 0.4 billion from GBP 12.4 billion in February. The British pound appreciated by 4.3% against the US dollar this week. The Bank of England (BoE) left rates unchanged at 0.1% and decided to continue purchases of UK government bonds and nonfinancial investment grade bonds, bringing the total stock to GBP 645 billion. The BoE has stated that it can expand asset purchases further if needed. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been negative: The Commonwealth bank manufacturing PMI decreased slightly to 50.1 while the services PMI plunged to 39.8 from 49 in March. The house price index grew by 3.9% quarter-on-quarter from 2.4% in Q4. Unemployment decreased slightly to 5.1% in February. The Australian dollar appreciated by 5.1% against the US dollar this week. The government pledged an additional A$64 billion package, bringing total stimulus to 10% of GDP. The package includes assistance for individuals and small businesses impacted by the virus. Prime Minister Morrison said that more stimulus, including direct cash handouts to households, is likely to be announced over coming weeks. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been negative: Exports increased to NZD 4.9 billion, imports shrank to NZD 4.3 billion and the monthly trade balance showed a surplus of NZD 593 billion. Credit card spending grew by 2.5% in February from 3.7% the previous month. The New Zealand dollar appreciated by 4.2% against the US dollar this week. The RBNZ turned to quantitative easing and announced the purchase of up to NZ$30 billion of government bonds, at a pace of NZ$750 million per week. The government announced fiscal stimulus of just over NZ$12 billion that includes wage subsidies for businesses, income support, tax relief and support for the airline industry.     Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been negative: Headline CPI grew by 2.2% year-on-year in February. Retail sales excluding autos fell by 0.1% month-on-month in January, compared to growth of 0.5% the previous month. Wholesale sales grew by 1.8% month-on-month in January from 1% the previous month. Jobless claims soared to 929 thousand in the week ended March 22, representing almost 5% of the labor force. The Canadian dollar appreciated by 2.8% against the US dollar this week. The government approved a C$107 billion stimulus package that includes payments of C$2,000 per month to individuals unemployed due to Covid-19 and C$55 billion in deferred tax payments for businesses and individuals. Report Links: The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been negative: Producer and import prices contracted by 2.1% from 1% year-on-year in February. ZEW expectations sank to -45.8 from 7.7 in March. Imports fell to CHF 15.7 billion from CHF 16 billion while exports fell to CHF 19.2 billion from CHF 20.7 billion in February. The Swiss franc appreciated by 1.6% against the US dollar this week. The Swiss government proposed stimulus worth CHF 32 billion, bringing total stimulus to 6% of GDP. The package will largely consist of bridge loans to small- and medium-sized businesses, social insurance and tax deferrals. The SNB also set up a refinancing facility to provide liquidity to banks. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been negative: The trade balance declined to 18.3 billion from 21.2 billion in February. Norwegian unemployment soared to 10.9% in March, the highest level since the Great Depression. The Norwegian krone appreciated by 7% against the US dollar this week. The Norges Bank cut rates from 1% to a record low of 0.25%, citing worsening conditions since the 50 basis point cut on March 13. Parliament approved loans, tax deferrals, and extra spending worth NOK 280 billion. The government expects private-sector activity to contract by 15-20% in the near-term. The government will likely need to draw on its sovereign wealth fund to finance spending. Report Links: Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been negative: The producer price index contracted by 1.2% year-on-year in February, deepening from 0.4% the previous month. Consumer confidence dropped to 89.6 from 98.5 in March. The trade balance grew to SEK 13.2 billion from SEK 11.8 billion in February. The unemployment rate rose to 8.2% from 7.5% in February. The Swedish krona appreciated by 3.5% against the US dollar this week. The Swedish government bucked the lockdown strategy, choosing to keep businesses open during the pandemic. In addition, the government announced stimulus measures of up to SEK 300 billion, which includes relief for employees that have been laid off or taken sick leave. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades