Recession-Hard/Soft Landing

S&P 500 futures (ES) have fallen over 36% from peak to trough. This is similar to the median fall during recession bear markets dating back to the Great Depression. Most importantly, comparing the two most recent iterations is instructive in attempting to figure out what is baked in the cake. Namely, in the 9/11 catalyzed recession and subprime mortgage collapse catalyzed recession, EPS got halved. Similarly, equities fell 50% from their respective peaks. If we use that assumption – i.e. a recessionary equity bear market fall predicts the eventual profit drubbing – then what the ES futures clocking in at 2174 discounted is that trailing EPS will fall from $162 to $104 and forward EPS from $177 to $113 (see chart). While we have no real visibility on EPS, our sense is that we will not fall further than what was already discounted in the broad market. If we are offside and a GFC or Great Depression ensues, then profits will get halved to $81 and the SPX will fall to 1700. Another simple way of looking at the EPS drawdown is by considering $162 as trend EPS. Then for every month that the economy is shut down roughly $13.5 get shaved off EPS. Thus, triangulating both approaches, a $104 EPS level has discounted a shutdown lasting 4 months and 10 days. This is a tall order and we would lean against such extreme pessimism. Bottom Line: Investors with higher risk tolerance and a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon will be handsomely rewarded. Please see yesterday’s Weekly Report for more details. A Lot Of Bad News Is Priced In A Lot Of Bad News Is Priced In

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 Wells Fargo’s path, before and after deregulation, has been similar to every other SIFI bank’s: It began by serving a single area in a single state, expanded within the state, and then pieced together its regional and national footprint via combinations. A review of 50 years of Wells Fargo’s financials offers multiple insights into the way that banking has evolved at the regional and SIFI bank level: Several community banks are at risk amidst the economy’s unprecedentedly sudden stop, but the overall banking system’s health turns on the condition of the regional banks and the SIFIs. Larger banks are far less reliant on lending than they used to be, … : Net interest income has contributed just 53% of Wells Fargo’s revenues since 2009. The banks would prefer wider net interest margins, but narrow ones won’t wreck their earnings power. … have considerably more capital, and are holding more cash, Treasury and agency securities to stabilize the asset side of the balance sheet: The big banks have two sources of additional ballast: more equity capital to absorb losses, and more stable asset portfolios to limit them in the first place. Feature We are top-down researchers at BCA, using macro data to make conclusions about how financial markets will fare against the economic backdrop they’ll face in the future. We also occasionally glean macro insights from micro data, which we are happy to incorporate into our process when it helps augment our understanding. Wells Fargo is a good proxy for the SIFIs and regional banks which make up the heart of the banking system, because it traveled the same serial acquisition path as its peers once prohibitions on interstate banking began to be eased in the mid-‘80s, and were wiped away for good in 1994. Wells Fargo makes all of its annual reports since 1969 available on its website, and their balance-sheet and income-statement detail fills in some gaps in the system-wide data available from the FDIC and the Fed. We will dig into the system-wide data in next week’s second installment of our examination of banking system vulnerability. This week, we focus on five decades of Wells Fargo data for insight into how banks have fared during the last seven recessions, and how they’re positioned heading into the current one. Banking, Then And Now A time-traveling visitor who worked in banking between the New Deal and the beginning of bank deregulation in the late seventies would find that banks fulfill the same two primary functions as they did in his/her day. They still promote financial intermediation by turning savers’ deposits into fuel for investment and accelerated consumption via loans to businesses and households, and they still administer the payments system. S/he might be unfamiliar with many of the ways they carry out those duties, however, and especially surprised at the way that lending and maturity transformation have been eclipsed. The biggest banks have become far less reliant on lending over the last 50 years, and they no longer engage in maturity transformation, ... At the largest banks, lending is no longer the be-all and the end-all, as revenue from fees has very nearly caught up to net interest income (Chart 1). After adjusting net interest income for loan-loss provisions, lending accounted for just 44% and 48% of Wells Fargo’s revenues in the 2000s in the 2010s, respectively. On that basis, fee revenue exceeded net interest income every year from 2007-2013, inclusive. The rise of fee income has made bank earnings more stable and bank capital levels less dependent on borrower fitness. Chart 1Lending Is No Longer The Only Game In Town Lending Is No Longer The Only Game In Town Lending Is No Longer The Only Game In Town Banks also no longer engage in maturity transformation, or borrowing short to lend long, which placed them at the mercy of the yield curve. When it inverted, profitability was squeezed as new deposit-taking-and-lending activity became less lucrative. When the curve shifted out, even if it remained upward-sloping, there was a risk that interest expense on new short-term borrowings would exceed interest income on legacy portfolio assets. The latter is what killed the savings and loans, which were chartered expressly to channel household savings into 30-year fixed-rate home mortgages. ... so investors shouldn't obsess over the yield curve's every wiggle. There is no doubt that bank stocks have closely followed moves in the 10-year Treasury yield for the last several years, and the correlation makes some sense. With deposit rates stuck at zero, the spread between the rate banks pay for funds and the rate at which they lend them out (net interest margin), should move with long yields. Over the last two decades, however, Wells Fargo’s profitability (Chart 2, top panel) has largely detached from net interest margins (Chart 2, bottom panel). It and other banks would welcome higher long yields, but equity investors’ fixation on them is misplaced in a banking industry which has rigorously matched the duration of its assets and liabilities for decades. Chart 2NIM's Influence Has Faded NIM's Influence Has Faded NIM's Influence Has Faded Bank Balance Sheets Have Become Considerably More Conservative In the wake of the 2008-9 crisis, Wells Fargo and other banks have been managed much more cautiously. The share of Wells Fargo’s assets held in cash, Treasury and agency securities is at its highest level in the last 50 years (Chart 3). Its loan-to-deposit ratio is around 50-year lows, indicating that sticky core deposits1 are amply capable of funding its loan book (Chart 4). Wells’ overall leverage,2 or the value of assets supported by each dollar of common equity, is also way down (Chart 5). All banks have de-levered from their peaks, as mandated by regulators after the 2008-9 crisis, making the banking system safer, if less profitable. Mitigating some of the drag on profits brought about by lessened leverage, banks have become considerably more efficient since the early ‘70s. The ATM has reduced the need for physical branches and staff, check processing has been streamlined, and online banking is continuing to help push costs even lower. Chart 3Playing It Safe Playing It Safe Playing It Safe Chart 4Not Anywhere Close To Extended Not Anywhere Close To Extended Not Anywhere Close To Extended Chart 5Safety First Safety First Safety First Credit Costs: The Elephant In The Room The main concern for bank stability, profitability and capital adequacy is the effect of the economic sudden stop on credit performance. Credit performance is acutely sensitive to the business cycle, and banks have headed into this recession, as always, with very low loan-loss reserve balances (Chart 6, top panel). Loan-loss provisions, which reduce net income and chip away at capital positions, are bound to rise, suddenly and significantly (Chart 6, middle panel). (Please see the Box, below, for a brief description of the mechanics of accounting for credit impairments.) Chart 6Banks Have A Lot Of Catching Up To Do Banks Have A Lot Of Catching Up To Do Banks Have A Lot Of Catching Up To Do Box: Accounting For Lending Losses Every business that makes sales on credit maintains an allowance for doubtful accounts to reflect the fact that not every bill will be paid in full. That allowance reduces the carrying value of its accounts receivable to something below their aggregate face value. Using a loan-loss reserve account, banks apply the same principle to loan repayments. The loan-loss reserve is increased by provisions for loan losses, projections of future loan losses that are immediately recognized as an expense. At the time that a bank provisions for future losses, it does not map the as-yet unrealized losses to individual loans. The value of the loans that are not going to be fully repaid are marked down once they reveal themselves, and the sum of all of the individual write-downs is aggregated as a net charge-off. Identifying individual loan impairments reduces the pool of unspecified loan-loss reserves represented by the reserve account. Net charge-offs do not have any direct impact on bank earnings or bank capital, but by consuming existing reserves, they herald a rebuild of the reserve buffer. Table 1 shows the accounting entries involved in recognizing credit losses, demonstrating the underlying rules. Provisions increase reserves and charge-offs reduce them, triggering a need for more provisions, and ensuring a continuing drain on income and equity capital. Table 1Loan-Loss Accounting How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 1: A 50-Year Bottom-Up Case Study How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 1: A 50-Year Bottom-Up Case Study The current recession, emerging from the widespread shutdown of economic activity to counter COVID-19, will mark the sharpest downturn since the Great Depression. The sudden stop in activity, and borrowers’ revenue streams, should induce a high level of defaults. Perhaps Wells Fargo’s loan-loss reserves as a share of outstanding loans will ultimately exceed their 1993 peak of nearly 6.5%, following the 1990-91 recession, which wreaked particular havoc on real estate, and in California, where the bank conducted substantially all of its business. Banks would be in a tricky spot if the economy were left to face the coronavirus crisis by itself, but policymakers are doing their utmost to support it. Chart 7There's Nothing Unusual About Credit Line Exposures There's Nothing Unusual About Credit Line Exposures There's Nothing Unusual About Credit Line Exposures Wells Fargo barely broke even in 1991, and its book value declined by 6%. Investors seem to fear that it, and other banks, are at risk of net losses and book value declines in 2020. With nearly $1 trillion of outstanding loans, and an annual earnings run rate of around $20 billion, Wells Fargo would appear to be at risk of a nasty capital hit if the economic effects were left alone to play themselves out. The CARES Act coronavirus relief measure, however, clearly signals that the federal government is not going to leave the economy on its own to face the recession’s ravages. As a part of the act, banks were granted the option of delaying the implementation of CECL, the new credit loss recognition standard, which would have had the effect of speeding up the recognition of losses, until the virus emergency passes. The act also provided relief from a loan modification rule, thereby encouraging banks to work out new, easier terms to prevent defaults, and allowed community banks to operate with a reduced minimum equity capital cushion. The $850 billion dedicated to supporting small business borrowers ($350 billon) and other borrowers, including airlines and companies deemed critical to national security ($500 billion) will also benefit their creditors. It is clear to us that forbearance, which will help debtors and creditors weather the social-distancing storm, has been established as a guiding principle for managing through the crisis. Policymakers are out to help banks, not to clip their wings. Investors should also recognize that a lot of lending to small businesses and industrial borrowers has migrated away from banks. They do not stand as squarely in the path of the default storm as they would have in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s. Direct-lending funds sprung up in the wake of the 2008-9 crisis like mushrooms after the rain, and publicly-traded business development companies (BDCs) have steadily grown their SMID lending share. The biggest industrial borrowers are much more likely to turn to the bond market than they are to call on a syndicate of banks. Finally, the existence of unused loan commitments has occasioned concern among commentators and investors over the last several weeks. If corporate borrowers were to tap their credit lines en masse, would banks find themselves significantly more leveraged? Not at Wells Fargo, where total unfunded lending commitments are about at the middle of their range over the past 25 years (Chart 7, top panel), and its commitments to corporate borrowers are at the low end of their range (Chart 7, second panel). Credit card borrowers may be more inclined to max out their capacity (Chart 7, bottom panel), but that may not be a bad thing for bank profits. Interest on unpaid card balances produces juicy returns, and the 2005 bankruptcy overhaul makes it more difficult to discharge credit card debt. Bullish Or Bearish? Based on what we know now, we do not expect that the SIFI banks will pose a systemic threat to the financial system. Entire industries are at risk, and a multitude of small businesses are reeling, but banks have less exposure than they have in the past, and the Fed and Congress are on a war footing to try to protect the most vulnerable parts of the economy. The looming hit to the banks may be less severe than markets expect. Banks are especially exposed to the business cycle, and the market rule is to avoid them ahead of recessions. From a fundamental perspective, though, the last seven recessions have not been so bad for Wells Fargo. Its per-share book value managed to rise in all of them except the ’90-’91 recession3 (Chart 8). The stock slid in recessions because its book value multiple was slashed (Chart 9). Chart 8Book Value Doesn't Suffer Too Much In Recessions, ... Book Value Doesn't Suffer Too Much In Recessions, ... Book Value Doesn't Suffer Too Much In Recessions, ... Chart 9... But Multiples Are Regularly Crushed ... But Multiples Are Regularly Crushed ... But Multiples Are Regularly Crushed Wells Fargo’s multiple has been slashed again; as of Friday’s close, using its December 31st book value, it had fallen by 44%, from 1.33 to 0.75, and it had been more than halved as of last Monday. It trades at just 90% of its year-end tangible book value. On our first day on an equity trading desk, an old-timer told us that you “buy ‘em at one [times book], and sell ‘em at two.” He was talking about the investment banks, but Wells Fargo’s history suggests the maxim applies to commercial banks, too. In our view, SIFI banks offer an appealing margin of safety to investors who buy them at or below their tangible book value. The degree to which individual banks’ book values fall in this quarter and beyond depends on the size of their loan-loss provisions, but the selloff appears extreme. We noted the appeal of writing out-of-the-money puts on the SIFI banks last week, when the VIX was in the high 70s. Selling those options has lost some appeal after the S&P 500’s 10% surge last week, but writing them could again be alluring if the SIFIs revisit their lows in the coming days and weeks.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Loans that exceed deposits, or very nearly match them, are a sign of potential instability because banks often rely on “hot-money” flows to fund them by offering above-market interest rates on instruments like CDs. A bank must continue to pay above-market rates to retain these flows, which are prone to leave the bank for higher interest rates elsewhere. Loan-to-deposit ratios well below 100% can be funded entirely with core deposits, like checking and savings accounts, or market-rate CDs placed with core banking customers who are unlikely to move their business. 2 A bank’s leverage is calculated by dividing its total assets by its common shareholders’ equity. 3 Book value would have shrunk in 2008 if not for the purchase of Wachovia Bank at a significant discount.

Dear Client, I will be discussing the economic and financial implications of the pandemic with my colleague Caroline Miller this Friday, March 27 at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00 PM GMT, 1:00 PM CET, 8:00 PM HKT). I hope you will be able to join us for this webcast. Next week, we will send you a special report prepared by BCA’s Chief Economist Martin Barnes. Martin will provide his perspective on the current crisis, focusing on some of the longer-run implications. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The world is in the midst of a deep recession. Growth should recover in the third quarter as the measures taken to compensate for the initial slow response to the crisis are relaxed and existing measures are better calibrated to reduce economic distress. Continued monetary support and unprecedented fiscal stimulus should help drive the recovery once businesses reopen and workers return to their jobs. Investors should maintain a modest overweight to global equities. US stocks will lag their foreign peers over the next 12 months. The US dollar has peaked. A weaker dollar should help lift commodity prices and the more cyclical sectors of the stock market. High-yield credit spreads will narrow over the next 12 months, but we prefer investment-grade credit on a risk-reward basis. Investors are understating the potential long-term inflationary consequences of all the stimulus that has been unleashed on the global economy. Buy TIPS and gold. I. Macroeconomic Outlook The global economy is now in recession. The recession has occurred because policymakers saw it as the lesser of two evils. They judged, with good reason, that a temporary shutdown of most non-essential economic activities was a price worth paying to contain the virus. Outside of China, the level of real GDP is likely to be down 1%-to-3% in Q1 of 2020 relative to Q4 of 2019, and down another 5%-to-10% in Q2 relative to Q1. On a sequential annualized basis, this implies that GDP growth could register a negative print of 40% in some countries in the second quarter, a stunning number that has few parallels in history. Growth in China should stage a modest rebound in the second quarter, reflecting the success the country has had in containing the virus. Nevertheless, the level of Chinese economic activity will remain well below its pre-crisis trend, with exports increasingly weighed down by the collapse in overseas spending. A One-Two Punch The “sudden stop” nature of the downturn stems from the fact that the global economy was simultaneously hit by both a massive demand and supply shock. When households are confined to their homes, they cannot spend as much as they normally would. This is particularly the case in an environment of heightened risk aversion, which usually leads to increased precautionary savings. At times like these, businesses also slash spending in a desperate effort to preserve cash. All this reduces aggregate demand. On the supply side, production has been impaired because of workers’ inability to get to their jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 30% of US employees can work from home (Chart 1). Since modern economies rely on an intricate division of labor, disturbances in one part of the economy quickly ripple through to other parts. The global supply chain ceases to function normally. Chart 1US: Who Can Work From Home And Who Cannot? Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Think of this as a Great Depression-style demand shock combined with a category five hurricane supply shock.  The fact that both of these shocks have been concentrated in the service sector, which represents at least two-thirds of GDP in most economies, has made the situation even worse (Chart 2). During most recessions, the service sector is the ballast that helps stabilize the economy in the face of sharp declines in the more cyclical sectors such as manufacturing and housing. This time is different. Chart 2The Service Sector Accounts For A Big Chunk Of GDP And Has Been Very Hard Hit Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V The Shape Of The Recovery: L, U, or V? Provided that the number of new infections around the world stabilizes during the next two months, growth should begin to recover in the third quarter. What will the recovery look like? From the perspective of sequential quarterly growth rates, a V-shaped recovery is inevitable simply because a string of quarters of negative 20%-to-40% growth would quickly leave the world with no GDP at all. However, thinking in terms of growth rates is not the best approach. It is better to think of the level of real GDP. Chart 3 shows three scenarios: 1) An L-shaped profile for real GDP where the level of output falls and then remains permanently depressed relative to its long-term trend; 2) A sluggish U-shaped recovery where output slowly rebounds starting in the second half of the year; and 3) A rapid V-shaped recovery where output quickly moves back to its pre-crisis trend. Chart 3Profile Of The Recovery: L, U, or V? Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V We had previously thought that the recovery from the pandemic would be V-shaped. Compared to the sluggish recovery following the Great Recession, that is likely still true. However, at this point, we would prefer to characterize the probable recovery as being more U-shaped in nature. This is mainly because the measures necessary to contain the virus may end up having to remain in place, in one form or another, for the next few years. Why Not L? Given the likelihood that containment measures will continue to weigh on economic activity, how can an L-shaped “recovery” be avoided? While such a dire outcome cannot be ruled out, there are three reasons to think “U” is more likely than “L”. Reason #1: We Will Learn From Experience It is almost certain that we will figure out how to fine-tune containment measures to reduce the economic burden without increasing the number of lives lost. There are still many questions that remain unanswered. For example: Are restaurants where family members sit together really more dangerous than bars or conferences where strangers are milling about talking to one another? How dangerous is air travel? Modern airplanes have hospital-grade filtration systems that recirculate all the air in the cabin every three minutes. Might this explain why there has only been a handful of flight attendants that have tested positive for the virus? How contagious are children, who often may not present any symptoms at all? Which drugs might slow the spread of the disease or perhaps even cure it? To what extent would widespread mask-wearing help? Yes, a mask may not prevent you from catching the virus, but if there is major social stigma associated with being unmasked in public, then people who have the virus and may not know it will be less of a threat to others. One study estimates that the virus could be completely eradicated if 80% of people always wore masks.1  With time, we will learn the answers to these questions. We will also be able to stockpile masks, ventilators, respirators, and test kits – all of which are currently in short supply – to better combat the virus. Reason #2: We Are NowOvercompensating For Lost Time Second, most countries are currently at the stage where they are trying not just to bring down the basic reproduction number for the virus to 1, but to drive it down to well below 1. There is merit in doing so. If you can reduce the reproduction number to say, 0.5, meaning that 100 people with the virus will pass it on to only 50 other people, then the number of new infections will fall rapidly over time. This is what China was finally able to achieve. A recent study documented that China succeeded in bringing down the reproduction number in Wuhan from 3.86 to 0.32 once all the containment measures had been implemented (Chart 4).2 Chart 4Severe Containment Measures Have Changed The Course Of The Wuhan Outbreak Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V The critical point is that once you reduce the number of new infections to a sufficiently low level, you can then relax the containment measures by just enough so that the reproduction number rises back to 1. At that point, the number of new infections at any given point in time will be constant. One can see this point by imagining a bicycle coasting down a mountain road. Ideally, the rider should apply uniform pressure on the brakes at the outset of the descent to prevent the bicycle from accelerating too quickly. However, if the rider is too slow to apply the brakes and ends up going too fast, he or she will then need to overcompensate by pressing hard on the brakes to slow the bike down before easing off the brakes a bit. Most of the world is currently in the same predicament as the cyclist who failed to squeeze the brakes early on. We are overcompensating to get the infection rate down. However, once the infection rate has fallen by enough, we can ease off the most economically onerous measures, allowing GDP to slowly recover. Reason #3: Containment Measure Will Be Eased As More People Acquire Immunity Much of the popular discussion of the epidemiology of COVID-19 has failed to distinguish between the basic reproduction number, R0, and the effective reproduction number, Re. The former measures the average number of people a carrier of the virus will infect in an entirely susceptible population, whereas the latter measures the average number of people who will be infected after some fraction of the population acquires immunity either by surviving the disease or getting vaccinated. Mathematically, Re = R0*(1-P), where P is the proportion of the population which has acquired immunity. For example, suppose P=0.5, meaning that half the population has acquired immunity. In this case, the average number of people a carrier will infect will be only half as high as when no one has immunity. As we discuss below, there is considerable uncertainty about how fast P will increase over time, including whether it could spike upwards if a vaccine becomes widely available. Still, any increase in P will make it more difficult for the virus to propagate. Over time, this will permit policymakers to raise R0 at an accelerating rate towards the level it would naturally be in the absence of any containment measures (Chart 5). Such a strategy would allow economic activity to increase without raising Re; that is to say, without triggering an explosion in the number of new cases. Chart 5Populations Acquiring Immunity Is Key Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V The Virus Endgame How long will it take to dismantle all the containment measures completely? This partly depends on what medical breakthroughs occur and what measures are needed to “flatten the curve” of new infections (Chart 6). Right now, most countries are trying to drive down the number of new infections to very low levels in the hopes that either a vaccine will be invented or new treatment options will become available. Chart 6Flattening The Curve Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V We are not medical experts and will not offer an opinion on how likely a breakthrough may be. What we would say is that combating the virus has become a modern-day Manhattan project. If the project succeeds, a V-shaped recovery could still ensue. What if the virus evades the best efforts of scientists to eradicate it? In that case, the only way for life to return to some semblance of normalcy is for the population to acquire herd immunity. How many people would need to be infected? In the context of the foregoing discussion, this is equivalent to asking how high P needs to rise for Re to fall below 1. The equation above tells us this must correspond to the value of P for which R0 (1-P) <1. Solving for P yields P > 1-1/R0. In the absence of social distancing and other containment measures, most estimates of R0 for COVID-19 place it between 1.5 and 4. This implies that between one-third (1-1/1.5) to three-quarters (1-1/4) of the population would need to be infected for herd immunity to set in. Even if one allows for the likelihood that significantly more resources will be marshalled to allow hospitals to service a greater number of patients, we estimate that it would take 2-to-3 years to reach that point.3 To be clear, the virus’ ability to spread will decline even before herd immunity is achieved. An increase in the share of the population who survived and became naturally inoculated against the virus would allow policymakers to relax containment measures, perhaps to such an extent that eventually only the simplest of actions such as increased hand-washing and widespread mask-wearing would be enough to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. This underscores our baseline expectation of a U-shaped economic recovery. Second-Round Effects Suppose the global economy starts to recover in the third quarter of this year as the measures taken to compensate for the initial slow response to the crisis are relaxed, existing measures are better calibrated to reduce economic distress, and more younger and healthier people acquire natural immunity to the virus, thus reducing the vulnerability of the old and frail. Does that mean we are out of the woods? Not necessarily! We still have to worry about the second-round economic effects. Even if the virus is contained, there is a risk that the economy will be so scarred by the initial drop in output that it will fail to recover. A vicious circle could emerge where falling spending leads to higher unemployment, leading to even less spending. In the current environment, the tendency for unemployment to rise may be initially mitigated by the decision of a few large companies with ample financial resources to pay their workers even if they are confined to their homes. This would result in a decline in labor productivity rather than higher unemployment. That said, given the severity of the shock and the fact that many of the hardest-hit firms are in the labor-intensive service sector, a sharp rise in joblessness is still inevitable, particularly in countries with flexible labor markets such as the US. Chart 7Worries Over Job Security Abound Worries Over Job Security Abound Worries Over Job Security Abound Today’s spike in US initial unemployment claims is testament to that point (Chart 7). In fact, the true increase in the unemployment rate will probably be greater than what is implied by the claims data because many state websites did not have the bandwidth to handle the slew of applications. In addition, under existing rules, the self-employed and those working in the “gig economy” do not qualify for unemployment benefits (this has been rectified in the bill now making its way to the White House). The Role Of Policy Could we really end up in a world where the virus is contained, and people are ready and able to work, only to find that there are no jobs available? While such a sorry outcome cannot be dismissed, we would bet against it. This outcome would only arise if there is insufficient demand throughout the economy when it reopens. Unlike in 2008/09 when there was a lot of moralizing about how this or that group deserved to be punished for their reckless behavior, no one in their right mind today would argue that the workers losing their jobs and the companies facing bankruptcy somehow had it coming. What can policymakers realistically do? On the monetary side, policy rates are already close to zero in most developed economies. A number of emerging markets still have scope to cut rates, but even there, many find themselves not far from the zero bound (Chart 8). Chart 8DM Rates At The Zero Bound, With EM Rates Approaching DM Rates At The Zero Bound, With EM Approaching DM Rates At The Zero Bound, With EM Approaching Chart 9A Mad Scramble For Cash A Mad Scramble For Cash A Mad Scramble For Cash   That said, cutting interest rates right now is not the only, and probably not the most important, way for central banks to stimulate their economies. The global economy is facing a cash shortage. Companies are tapping credit lines at a time when banks would normally be looking to increase their own cash reserves. The mad scramble for cash has caused libor, repo, and commercial paper spreads to surge (Chart 9). And not just any cash. As the world’s reserve currency, the dollar is increasingly in short supply (Chart 10). This explains why cross-currency basis spreads have soared and why the DXY index has jumped to the highest level in 17 years. Chart 10Dollars Are In Short Supply Dollars Are In Short Supply Dollars Are In Short Supply   Flood The Zone Chart 11US Mortgage Spreads Have Spiked US Mortgage Spreads Have Spiked US Mortgage Spreads Have Spiked The good news is that there is no limit to how many dollars the Federal Reserve can create. The Fed has already expanded the supply of bank reserves by initiating the purchase of $500 billion in treasuries and another $200 billion in agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) since relaunching its QE program on March 15th. Further MBS purchases will be especially useful given that mortgage rates have not come down as quickly as Treasury yields (Chart 11). The Fed has also dusted off the alphabet soup of programs created during the financial crisis to improve proper market functioning, and has even added a few more to the list, including a program to support investment-grade corporate bonds and another to support small businesses. In order to ease overseas funding pressures, the Fed has opened up swap lines with a number of central banks. We expect these lines to be expanded to more countries if the situation necessitates it. The Coming Mar-A-Lago Accord? We also think that there is at least a 50-50 chance that we could see coordinated currency interventions designed to drive down the value of the US dollar. Federal Reserve, Treasury, and IMF guidelines all permit currency intervention to counter “disorderly market conditions.” While a weaker dollar would erode the export competitiveness of some countries, this would be more than offset by the palliative effects of additional dollar liquidity stemming from US purchases of foreign securities, as well as the relief that overseas dollar borrowers would receive from dollar depreciation. Thus, on balance, a weaker dollar would result in an easing of global financial conditions. Liquidity Versus Solvency Risk Some might complain that the actions of the Fed and other central banks go well beyond their mandates. They might argue that it is one thing to provide liquidity to the financial system; it is quite another to socialize credit risk. We think these arguments are largely red herrings. For one thing, concern about credit risk can be addressed by having governments backstop central banks for any losses they incur. Moreover, there is no clear distinction between liquidity and solvency risk during a financial crisis. The former can very easily morph into the latter. For example, consider the case of Italy. Would you buy more Italian bonds if the yield rises? That depends on two competing considerations. On the one hand, a higher yield makes the bond cheaper. On the other hand, a higher yield may make it more difficult for the government to service its debt obligations, which raises the risk of default. If the second consideration outweighs the first, your inclination may be to sell the bond. To the extent that your selling causes yields to rise further, that could lead to another wave of selling. As Chart 12 illustrates, this means that there may be multiple equilibria in fixed-income markets. It is absolutely the job of central banks to try to steer the economy towards the good ”low yield” equilibrium rather than the bad “default” equilibrium. Chart 12Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V In this light, ECB president Christine Lagarde’s statement on March 12th that “we are not here to close spreads” –  coming on the heels of a spike in Italian bond yields and a 13% drop in euro area stocks the prior day – was one of the most negligent things a central banker has ever said. To her credit, she has since walked back her comments. The ECB has also launched the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP), a EUR 750bn asset-purchase program, which gives the central bank considerable flexibility over the timing, composition, and geographic makeup of purchases. Further actions, including upsizing the PEPP, creating a “conditionality-lite” version of the ESM program, and perhaps even issuing Eurobonds, are possible. All this should help Italy. Accordingly, BCA’s global fixed-income team upgraded Italian government bonds to overweight this week. Using Fiscal Policy To Align Financial Time With Economic Time While central banks will play an important role in mitigating the crisis, most of the economic burden will fall on fiscal policy. How much fiscal support is necessary and what should it consist of? To get a sense of what is optimal, it is useful to distinguish between the concept of financial time and economic time. Financial time and economic time usually beat at the same pace. Most of the time, people have financial obligations – rent, mortgage payments, spending on necessities – that they match with the income earned from work. Likewise, companies have expenses that they match with the revenue that they derive from various economic activities.  No one worries when economic time and financial time deviate in predictable ways. For example, GDP collapses around 5pm on Monday only to recover at 9am on Tuesday. The fact that many western Europeans take most of August off for vacation is also not a problem, since everyone expects this. The problem occurs when economic time and financial time deviate in unpredictable ways. That is the case at present. Today, economic time has ground to a halt as businesses shutter their doors and workers confine themselves to their homes. Yet, financial time continues to march on. This implies that in the near term, the correct course of action is for governments to transfer money to households and firms to allow them to service their financial obligations. One simple way of achieving this is through wage subsidies, where the government pays companies most of the wage bill of their employees who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work. Note that this strategy does not boost GDP. By definition, an idle worker is one who does not contribute to economic output. What this strategy does do is alleviate needless hardship, while creating pent-up demand for when businesses start to open their doors again. Once the virus is contained, traditional fiscal stimulus that boosts aggregate demand will be appropriate. How much money are we talking about? In the case of the US, suppose that annualized growth is -5% in Q1, -25% in Q2, and +10% in Q3 and Q4, respectively. That would leave the level of real GDP down 4% on the year compared to 2019. Assuming trend GDP growth of 2%, that implies an annual shortfall of income (consisting of wages and lost profits) that the government would have to cover amounting to 6% of GDP. The $2 trillion stimulus bill amounts to 10% of GDP, although not all of that will be spent during the next 12 months and about a quarter of the amount is in the form of loans and loan guarantees. Still, on size, we would give it an “A”. On composition, we would give it a “B”, as it lacks sufficient funding for state and local governments to cover the likely decline in the tax revenues that they will experience. This could result in layoffs of first responders, teachers, etc. Given that the US was running a fiscal deficit going into the crisis, all this additional stimulus could easily push the budget deficit to over 15% of GDP. While this is a huge number, keep in mind that in a world where interest rates are below the trend growth rate of the economy, a government can permanently increase its budget deficit by any amount it wants while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over the long haul.4 Today, we are not even talking about a permanent increase in the deficit, but a temporary increase that could last a few years at most. If we end up in a depression, don’t blame the virus; blame politicians. Fortunately, given that the political incentives are aligned towards fiscal easing rather than austerity, our guess is that a depression will be averted. Appendix A summarizes the monetary and fiscal measures that have already been taken in the major economies. II. Investment Strategy As anyone who has ever watched a horror movie knows, the scariest part of the film is the one before the monster is revealed to the audience. No matter how good the makeup or set design, our imaginations can always conjure up something much more frightening than Hollywood can invent. Right now, we are fighting an invisible enemy that is ravaging the world. Victory is in sight. The number of new infections has peaked in China and South Korea. I mentioned during last week’s webcast that we should watch Italy very carefully. If the number of new infections peaks there, that would send an encouraging signal to financial markets that other western democracies will be able to get the virus under control. While it is too early to be certain, this may be happening: Both the number of new cases and deaths in Italy have stabilized over the past five days (Chart 13). Chart 13A Peak In The Number Of New COVID-19 Cases In Italy Would Send An Encouraging Signal Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Of course, there is still the risk that the number of new infections will rise again if containment measures are relaxed prematurely. However, as we spelled out in this report, there are good reasons to think that these measures will not need to be as severe as the ones currently in place. As such, it is likely that global growth will begin to rebound in the third quarter of this year. Equities: A Modest Overweight Is Warranted We turned more cautious on the near-term outlook for global equities earlier this year, but upgraded our recommendation on the morning of February 28th after the MSCI All-Country World Index fell by 12% over the prior week. While stocks did rally by 7% during the following three trading days, they subsequently plunged to multi-year lows. In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to our own warnings in our earlier report titled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.” 5 For now, we would recommend a modest overweight to stocks on both a 3-month and 12-month horizon. Monetary and fiscal easing and the prospect of a peak in the number of new cases in Italy could continue to support stocks in the near term, while a rebound in growth starting this summer should pave the way for a recovery in corporate earnings over a 12-month horizon. Chart 14US Equity Valuations Are Not Yet At Bombed-Out Levels US Equity Valuations Are Not Yet At Bombed-Out Levels US Equity Valuations Are Not Yet At Bombed-Out Levels Of course, when it comes to financial markets, one should always be prepared to adjust one’s conviction level if prices either rise or fall significantly. We mentioned two weeks ago that we would move to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 fell below 2250. While the index did briefly fall below this level, it has since bounced back to about 2630. At its current level, the S&P 500 is trading at 15.3-times forward earnings (Chart 14). While this is not particularly expensive, it is still well above the trough of 10.5-times forward earnings reached in 2011 during the height of the euro crisis. And keep in mind that current earnings estimates are based on the stale assumption that S&P 500 companies will earn $172 over the next four quarters, down only 3% from the peak earnings estimate of $177 reached in February. With this in mind, we are introducing a lower and upper bound for global equity prices at which we will adjust our view. To keep things simple, we will focus on the S&P 500, which accounts for over half of global stock market capitalization. If the S&P 500 falls below (and stays below) 2250, we would recommend a high-conviction overweight to global stocks. If the index rises above 2750, we would recommend a neutral equity allocation. Anything between 2250 and 2750 would justify the current stance of modest overweight. Going forward, we will adjust this range as events warrant it. Our full slate of views can be found in the table at the end of this report. Sector And Regional Equity Allocation: Favor Cyclicals and Non-US Over A 12-Month Horizon Not surprisingly, defensive equity sectors outperformed cyclicals both in the US and abroad during this month’s selloff. Financials also underperformed on heightened worries about rising defaults and the adverse effect on net interest margins from flatter yield curves (Chart 15). Chart 15Cyclicals And Financials Underperformed On The Way Down Cyclicals And Financials Underperformed On The Way Down Cyclicals And Financials Underperformed On The Way Down Chart 16Non-US Stocks Are Cheaper Even After Adjusting For Differences In Sector Weights Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V   Cyclicals and financials have outperformed the broader market over the past few days as risk sentiment has improved. They are likely to continue outperforming over a 12-month horizon as global growth eventually recovers and yield curves steepen modestly. To the extent that cyclicals and financials are overrepresented in stock market indices outside the US, this will give non-US equities the edge. Stocks outside the US also benefit from more favorable valuations. Even after adjusting for differences in sector weights, non-US stocks are quite a bit cheaper than their US peers as judged by price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and other valuation measures (Chart 16). The US Dollar Has Probably Peaked Another factor that should help cyclical stocks later this year is the direction of the US dollar. The greenback has been buffeted by two major forces this year (Chart 17). Chart 17The Dollar Has Been Facing Crosscurrents The Dollar Has Been Facing Crosscurrents The Dollar Has Been Facing Crosscurrents Chart 18USD Is A Countercyclical Currency USD Is A Countercyclical Currency USD Is A Countercyclical Currency   Between February 19 and March 9, the dollar weakened as US bond yields fell more than yields abroad. This eliminated some of the yield advantage that had been supporting the dollar last year. Starting around the second week of March, however, global financial stresses escalated. Money began to flow into the safe-haven Treasury market. Global growth prospects also deteriorated sharply. As a countercyclical currency, this helped the dollar (Chart 18). Looking out, interest rate differentials are unlikely to return anywhere close to where they were at the start of this year, given that the Fed will probably keep rates near zero at least until the middle of 2021. Meanwhile, aggressive central bank liquidity injections should reduce financial stress, while a rebound in global growth will allow capital to start flowing back towards riskier foreign markets. This should result in a weaker dollar. Once Growth Bottoms, So Will Commodities Chart 19Low Prices Force US Shale Cutbacks Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V The combination of a weaker dollar, a rebound in global growth starting this summer, and increased infrastructure stimulus spending in China should help lift resource prices. This will also buoy currencies such as the AUD, CAD, and NOK in the developed market space, and RUB, CLP, ZAR, and IDR, in the EM space. Oil prices have tumbled on the back of the sudden stop in global economic activity and the breakdown of the agreement between OPEC and Russia to restrain crude production. BCA’s commodity strategists expect the Saudis and Russians to come to an agreement to reduce output, as neither side has an incentive to pursue a prolonged price war. They see Brent prices averaging $36/barrel in 2020 and $55/barrel in 2021. However, prices are not likely to go much higher than $60/barrel because that would take them well above the current breakeven cost for shale producers, eliciting a strong supply response (Chart 19). Spread Product: Favor IG Over HY A rebound in oil prices from today’s ultra-depressed levels should help the bonds of energy companies, which are overrepresented in high-yield indices. This, together with stronger global growth and improving risk sentiment, should allow HY spreads to narrow over a 12-month horizon. Chart 20High-Yield Credit Is Pricing In Only A Moderate Recession High-Yield Credit Is Pricing In Only A Moderate Recession High-Yield Credit Is Pricing In Only A Moderate Recession Nevertheless, we think investment grade currently offers a better risk-reward profile. While HY spreads have jumped to more than 1000 basis points in the US, they are still nowhere close to 2008 peak levels of almost 2000 basis points. Like the equity market, high-yield credit is pricing in only a modest recession, with a default rate on par with the 2001 downturn (Chart 20). Moreover, central banks around the world are racing to protect high-quality borrowers from default. The Fed’s announcement that it will effectively backstop the investment-grade corporate bond market could be a game changer in this regard. Unfortunately for HY credit, the moral hazard consequences of bailing out companies that investors knew were risky when they first bought the bonds are too great for policymakers to bear. Government Bonds: Deflation Today, Inflation Tomorrow? As noted at the outset of this report, the current economic downturn involves both an adverse supply and demand shock. Outside of a few categories of consumer staples and medical products, we expect demand to fall more than supply, resulting in downward pressure on prices. This deflationary impulse will be exacerbated by rising unemployment. Looking beyond the next 12-to-18 months, the outlook for inflation is less clear. On the one hand, it is possible that the psychological trauma from the pandemic will produce a permanent, or at least semi-permanent, increase in precautionary savings. If budget deficits are reined in too quickly, many countries could find themselves facing a shortage of aggregate demand. This would be deflationary. On the other hand, one can easily envision a scenario where monetary policy remains highly accommodative and many of the fiscal measures put in place to support households are maintained long after the virus is eradicated. This could be particularly true in the US, where our geopolitical team now expects Joe Biden to win the presidential election. In such an environment, unemployment could fall back to its lows, eventually leading to an overheated economy. Our hunch is that the more inflationary scenario will unfold over the next 2-to-3 years. Interestingly, that is not the market’s opinion. For example, the 5-year US TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently only 0.69% and the 10-year rate is 1.07%. This means that a buy-and-hold investor will make money owning TIPS versus nominals if inflation averages more than 0.69% per year for the next five years, or 1.07% per year for the next decade. That is a bet we would be willing to take. Finally, a word on gold. Just as during the Global Financial Crisis, gold failed to be an attractive hedge against financial risk during the recent stock market selloff – bullion dropped by 15% from $1704/oz to $1451/oz, before rebounding back to $1640/oz over the past few days as risk sentiment improved. Nevertheless, gold remains a good hedge against long-term inflation risk. And with the US dollar likely to weaken over the next 12 months, gold prices should move up even if near-term inflationary pressures remain contained. As such, we are upgrading our outlook on the yellow metal. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Appendix A Appendix A Table 1Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Appendix A Table 2Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Footnotes 1  Jing Yan, Suvajyoti Guha, Prasanna Hariharan, and Matthew Myers, “Modeling the Effectiveness of Respiratory Protective Devices in Reducing Influenza Outbreak,” U.S. National Library of Medicine, (39:3), March 2019. 2  Chaolong Wang, Li Liu, Xingjie Hao, Huan Guo, Qi Wang, Jiao Huang, Na He, Hongjie Yu, Xihong Lin, Sheng Wei, and Tangchun Wu, “Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,”medrxiv.org, March 6, 2020. 3  This calculation assumes that 5% of infected people need ICU care and each spends an average of 2 weeks in the ICU. It also assumes that hospitals are able to expand their capacity by 30 additional ICU beds per 100,000 people per year to treat COVID-19. 4  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019, available at gis.bcarearch.com. 5  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” dated February 21, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The pandemic has a negative impact on households and has not peaked in the US. But a depression is likely to be averted. Our market-based geopolitical risk indicators point toward a period of rising political turbulence across the world. We are selectively adding risk to our strategic portfolio, but remain tactically defensive. Stay long gold on a strategic time horizon. Feature I'm going where there's no depression, To the lovely land that's free from care. I'll leave this world of toil and trouble My home's in Heaven, I'm going there. - “No Depression In Heaven,” The Carter Family (1936) Chart 1The Pandemic Stimulus Versus The Great Recession Stimulus GeoRisk Update: No Depression GeoRisk Update: No Depression Markets bounced this week on the back of a gargantuan rollout of government spending that is the long-awaited counterpart to the already ultra-dovish monetary policy of global central banks (Chart 1). Just when the investment community began to worry about a full-fledged economic depression and the prospect for bank runs, food shortages, and martial law in the United States, the market rallied. Yet extreme uncertainty persists over how long one third of the world’s population will remain hidden away in their homes for fear of a dangerous virus (Chart 2). Chart 2Crisis Has Not Verifiably Peaked, Uncertainty Over Timing Of Lockdowns GeoRisk Update: No Depression GeoRisk Update: No Depression Chart 3The Pandemic Shock To The Labor Market The Pandemic Shock To The Labor Market The Pandemic Shock To The Labor Market While an important and growing trickle of expert opinion suggests that COVID-19 is not as deadly as once thought, especially for those under the age of 50, consumer activity will not return to normal anytime soon.1 Moreover political and geopolitical risks are skyrocketing and have yet to register in investors’ psyche. Consider: American initial unemployment claims came in at a record-breaking 3.3 million (Chart 3), while China International Capital Corporation estimates that China’s GDP will grow by 2.6% for the year. These are powerful blows against global political as well as economic stability. This should convince investors to exercise caution even as they re-enter the equity market. We are selectively putting some cash to work on a strategic time frame (12 months and beyond) to take advantage of some extraordinary opportunities in equities and commodities. But we maintain the cautious and defensive tactical posture that we initiated on January 24. No Depression In Heaven The US Congress agreed with the White House on an eye-popping $2.2 trillion or 10% of GDP fiscal stimulus. At least 46% of the package consists of direct funds for households and small businesses (Chart 4). This includes $290 billion in direct cash handouts to every middle-class household – essentially “helicopter money,” as it is financed by bonds purchased by the central bank (Table 1). The purpose is to plug the gap left by the near complete halt to daily life and business as isolation measures are taken. A depression is averted, but we still have a recession. Go long consumer staples. Chart 4The US Stimulus Package Breakdown GeoRisk Update: No Depression GeoRisk Update: No Depression Table 1Distribution Of Cash Handouts Under US Coronavirus Response Act GeoRisk Update: No Depression GeoRisk Update: No Depression China, the origin of the virus that triggered the global pandemic and recession, is resorting to its time-tried playbook of infrastructure spending, with 3% of GDP in new spending projected. This number is probably heavily understated. It does not include the increase in new credit that will accompany official fiscal measures, which could easily amount to 3% of GDP or more, putting the total new spending at 6%. Germany and the EU have also launched a total fiscal response. The traditionally tight-fisted Berlin has launched an 11% of GDP stimulus, opening the way for other member states to surge their own spending. The EU Commission has announced it will suspend deficit restrictions for all member states. The ECB’s Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) enables direct lending without having to tap the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) or negotiate the loosening of its requirements. It also enables the ECB to bypass the debate over issuing Eurobonds (though incidentally Germany is softening its stance on the latter idea). The cumulative impact of all this fiscal stimulus is 5% of global GDP – and rising (Table 2). Governments will be forced to provide more cash on a rolling basis to households and businesses as long as the pandemic is raging and isolation measures are in place. Table 2The Global Fiscal Stimulus In Response To COVID-19 GeoRisk Update: No Depression GeoRisk Update: No Depression President Trump has signaled that he wants economic life to begin resuming after Easter Sunday, April 12. But he also said that he will listen to the advice of the White House’s public health advisors. State governors are the ones who implement tough “shelter in place” orders and other restrictions, so the hardest hit states will not resume activity until their governors believe that the impact on their medical systems can be managed. Authorities will likely extend the social distancing measures in April until they have a better handle on the best ways to enable economic activity while preserving the health system. Needless to say, economic activity will have to resume gradually as the government cannot replace activity forever and the working age population can operate even with the threat of contracting the disease (social distancing policies would become more fine-tuned for types of activity, age groups, and health risk profiles). The tipping point from recession to depression would be the point at which the government’s promises of total fiscal and monetary support for households and businesses become incapable of reassuring either the financial markets or citizens. The largest deficit the US government has ever run was 30% of GDP during World War II (Chart 5). Today’s deficit is likely to go well beyond 15% (5% existing plus 10% stimulus package plus falling revenue). If authorities were forced to triple the lockdown period and hence the fiscal response the country would be in uncharted territory. But this is unlikely as the incubation period of the virus is two weeks and China has already shown that a total lockdown can sharply reduce transmission. Chart 5The US's Largest Peacetime Budget Deficit The US's Largest Peacetime Budget Deficit The US's Largest Peacetime Budget Deficit Any tipping point into depression would become evident in behavior: e.g. a return to panic selling, followed by the closure of financial market trading by authorities, bank runs, shortages of staples across regions, and possibly the use of martial law and curfews. While near-term selloffs can occur, the rest seems very unlikely – if only because, again, the much simpler solution is to reduce the restrictions on economic activity gradually for the low-risk, healthy, working age population. Bottom Line: Granting that the healthy working age population can and will eventually return to work due to its lower risk profile, unlimited policy support suggests that a depression or “L-shaped” recovery is unlikely. The Dark Hour Of Midnight Nearing While the US looks to avoid a depression, there will still be a recession with an unprecedented Q2 contraction. The recovery could be a lot slower than bullish investors expect. Global manufacturing was contracting well before households got hit with a sickness that will suppress consumption for the rest of the year. There is another disease to worry about: the dollar disease. The world is heavily indebted and holds $12 trillion in US dollar-denominated debt. Yet the dollar is hitting the highest levels in years and global dollar liquidity is drying up. The greenback has rallied even against major safe haven currencies like the Japanese yen and Swiss franc (Chart 6). Of course, the Fed is intervening to ensure highly indebted US corporates have access to loans and extending emergency dollar swap lines to a total of 14 central banks. But in the near term global growth is collapsing and the dollar is overshooting. This can create a self-reinforcing dynamic. The same goes for any relapse in Chinese growth. Unlike in 2008 – but like 2015 – China is the epicenter of the global slowdown. China has much larger economic and financial imbalances today than it did in 2003 when the SARS outbreak occurred, and it will increase these imbalances going forward as it abandons its attempt to deleverage the corporate sector (Chart 7). Chart 6The Greenback Surge Deprives The World Of Liquidity The Greenback Surge Deprives The World Of Liquidity The Greenback Surge Deprives The World Of Liquidity Chart 7China's Financial Imbalances Are A Worry China's Financial Imbalances Are A Worry China's Financial Imbalances Are A Worry The rest of emerging markets face their own problems, including poor governance and productivity, as well as the dollar disease and the China fallout. They are unlikely to lift themselves out of this crisis, but they could become the source for credit events and market riots that prolong the global risk-off phase. Bottom Line: It is too soon to sound the all-clear. If the dollar continues on its rampage, then the gigantic stimulus will not be enough, markets will relapse, and fears of deflation will grow. World Of Toil And Trouble Political risk is the next shoe to drop. The pandemic and recession are setting in motion a political earthquake that will unfold over the next decade. Almost all of our 12 market-based geopolitical risk indicators have exploded upward since the beginning of the year. Chart 8China's Political Risk Is Rising China's Political Risk Is Rising China's Political Risk Is Rising These indicators show that developed market equities and emerging market currencies are collapsing far more than is justified by underlying fundamentals. This risk premium reflects the uncertainty of the pandemic, but the recession will destabilize regimes and fuel fears about national security. So the risk premium will not immediately decline in several important cases. China’s political risk is shooting up, as one would expect given that the pandemic began in Hubei (Chart 8). The stress within the Communist Party can be measured by the shrill tone of the Chinese propaganda machine, which is firing on all cylinders to convince the world that Chinese President Xi Jinping did a great job handling the virus while the western nations are failing states that cannot handle it. The western nations are indeed mishandling it, but that does not solve China’s domestic economic and social troubles, which will grow from here. Of course, our political risk indicator will fall if Chinese equities rally more enthusiastically than Chinese state banks expand credit as the economy normalizes. But this would suggest that markets have gotten ahead of themselves. By contrast, if China surges credit, yet equity investors are unenthusiastic, then the market will be correctly responding to the fact that a credit surge will increase economic imbalances and intensify the tug-of-war between authorities and the financial system, particularly over the effort to prevent the property sector bubble from ballooning. China needs to stimulate to recover from the downturn. Obviously it does not want instability for the 100th birthday of the Communist Party in 2021. An even more important reason for stimulus is the 2022 leadership reshuffle – the twentieth National Party Congress. This is the date when Xi Jinping would originally have stepped down and the leading member of the rival faction (Hu Chunhua?) would have taken over the party, the presidency, and the military commission. Today Xi is not at risk of losing power, but with a trade war and recession to his name, he will have to work hard to tighten control over the party and secure his ability to stay in power. An ongoing domestic political crackdown will frighten local governments and private businesses, who are already scarred by the past decade and whose animal spirits are important to the overall economic rebound. It is still possible that Beijing will have to depreciate the renminbi against the dollar. This is the linchpin of the trade deal with President Trump – especially since other aspects of the deal will be set back by the recession. As long as Trump’s approval rating continues to benefit from his crisis response and stimulus deals, he is more likely to cut tariffs on China than to reignite the trade war. This approach will be reinforced by the bump in his approval rating upon signing the $2 trillion Families First Coronavirus Response Act into law (Chart 9). He will try to salvage the economy and his displays of strength will be reserved for market-irrelevant players like Venezuela. But if the virus outbreak and the surge in unemployment turn him into a “lame duck” later this year, then he may adopt aggressive trade policy and seek the domestic political upside of confronting China. He may need to look tough on trade on the campaign trail. Diplomacy with North Korea could also break down. This is not our base case, but we note that investors are pricing crisis levels into the South Korean won despite its successful handling of the coronavirus (Chart 10). Pyongyang has an incentive to play nice to assist the government in the South while avoiding antagonizing President Trump. But Kim Jong Un may also feel that he has an opportunity to demonstrate strength. This would be relevant not because of North Korea’s bad behavior but because a lame duck President Trump could respond belligerently. Chart 9Trump’s Approval Gets Bump From Crisis Response And Stimulus GeoRisk Update: No Depression GeoRisk Update: No Depression Chart 10South Korean Political Risk Rising South Korean Political Risk Rising South Korean Political Risk Rising We highlighted Russia as a “black swan” candidate for 2020. This view stemmed from President Vladimir Putin’s domestic machinations to stay in power and tamp down on domestic instability in the wake of domestic economic austerity policies. For the same reason we did not expect Moscow to engage in a market share war with Saudi Arabia that devastated oil prices, the Russian ruble, and economy. At any rate, Russia will remain a source of political surprises going forward (Chart 11). Go long oil. Putin cannot add an oil collapse to a plague and recession and expect a popular referendum to keep him in power till 2036. The coronavirus is hitting Russia, forcing Putin to delay the April 22 nationwide referendum that would allow him to rule until 2036. It is also likely forcing a rethink on a budget-busting oil market share war, since more than the $4 billion anti-crisis fund (0.2% of GDP) will be needed to stimulate the economy and boost the health system. Russia faces a budget shortfall of 3 trillion rubles ($39 billion) this year from the oil price collapse. It is no good compounding the economic shock if one intends to hold a popular referendum – even if one is Putin. For all these reasons we agree with BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy that a return to negotiations is likely sooner rather than later. Chart 11Russia: A Lake Of Black Swans Russia: A Lake Of Black Swans Russia: A Lake Of Black Swans However, we would not recommend buying the ruble, as tensions with the US are set to escalate. Instead we recommend going long Brent crude oil. Political risk in the European states is hitting highs unseen since the peak of the European sovereign debt crisis (Chart 12). Some of this risk will subside as the European authorities did not delay this time around in instituting dramatic emergency measures. Chart 12Europe: No Delay In Offering 'Whatever It Takes' Europe: No Delay In Offering 'Whatever It Takes' Europe: No Delay In Offering 'Whatever It Takes' Chart 13Political Risk Understated In Taiwan And Turkey Political Risk Understated In Taiwan And Turkey Political Risk Understated In Taiwan And Turkey However, we do not expect political risk to fall back to the low levels seen at the end of last year because the recession will affect important elections between now and 2022 in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, and France. Only the UK has the advantage of a single-party parliamentary majority with a five-year term in office – this implies policy coherence, notwithstanding the fact that Prime Minister Boris Johnson has contracted the coronavirus. The revolution in German and EU fiscal policy is an essential step in cementing the peripheral countries’ adherence to the monetary union over the long run. But it may not prevent a clash in the coming years between Italy and Germany and Brussels. Italy is one of the countries most likely to see a change in government as a result of the pandemic. It is hard to see voters rewarding this government, ultimately, for its handling of the crisis, even though at the moment popular opinion is tentatively having that effect. The Italian opposition consists of the most popular party, the right-wing League, and the party with the fastest rising popular support, which is the right-wing Brothers of Italy. So the likely anti-incumbent effect stemming from large unemployment would favor the rise of an anti-establishment government over the next year or two. The result would be a clash with Brussels even in the context of Brussels taking on a more permissive attitude toward budget deficits. This will be all the worse if Brussels tries to climb down from stimulus too abruptly. Our political risk indicators have fallen for two countries over the past month: Taiwan and Turkey (Chart 13). This is not because political risk is falling in reality, but because these two markets have not seen their currencies depreciate as much as one would expect relative to underlying drivers of their economy: In Taiwan’s case the reason is the US dollar’s unusual strength relative to the Japanese yen amidst the crisis. Ultimately the yen is a safe-haven currency and it will eventually strengthen if global growth continues to weaken. Moreover we continue to believe that real world politics will lead to a higher risk premium in the Taiwanese dollar and equities. Taiwan faces conflicts with mainland China that will increase with China’s recession and domestic instability. In Turkey’s case, the Turkish lira has depreciated but not as much as one would expect relative to European equities, which have utterly collapsed. Therefore Turkey’s risk indicator shows its domestic political risk falling rather than rising. Turkey’s populist mismanagement will ensure that the lira continues depreciating after European equities recover, and then our risk indicator will shoot up. Chart 14Brazilian Political Risk Is No Longer Contained Brazilian Political Risk Is No Longer Contained Brazilian Political Risk Is No Longer Contained Prior to the pandemic, Brazilian political risk had remained contained, despite Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s extreme and unorthodox leadership. Since the outbreak, however, this indicator has skyrocketed as the currency has collapsed (Chart 14). To make matters worse, Bolsonaro is taking a page from President Trump and diminishing the danger of the coronavirus in his public comments to try to prevent a sharp economic slowdown. This lackadaisical attitude will backfire since, unlike the US, Brazil does not have anywhere near the capacity to manage a major outbreak, as government ministers have warned. This autumn’s local elections present an opportunity for the opposition to stage a comeback. Brazilian stocks won’t be driven by politics in the near term – the effectiveness of China’s stimulus is critical for Brazil and other emerging markets – but political risk will remain elevated for the foreseeable future. Bottom Line: Geopolitical risk is exploding everywhere. This marks the beginning of a period of political turbulence for most of the major nation-states. Domestic economic stresses can be dealt with in various ways but in the event that China’s instability conflicts with President Trump’s election, the result could be a historic geopolitical incident and more downside in equity markets. In Russia’s case this has already occurred, via the oil shock’s effect on US shale producers, so there is potential for relations to heat up – and that is even more true if Joe Biden wins the presidency and initiates Democratic Party revenge for Russian election meddling. The confluence of volatile political elements informs our cautious tactical positioning. Investment Conclusions If the historic, worldwide monetary and fiscal stimulus taking place today is successful in rebooting global growth, then there will be “no depression.” The world will learn to cope with COVID-19 while the “dollar disease” will subside on the back of massive injections of liquidity from central banks and governments. Gold: The above is ultimately inflationary and therefore our strategic long gold trade will be reinforced. The geopolitical instability we expect to emerge from the pandemic and recession will add to the demand for gold in such a reflationary environment. No depression means stay long gold! US Equities: Equities will ultimately outperform government bonds in this environment as well. Our chief US equity strategist Anastasios Avgeriou has tallied up the reasons to go long US stocks in an excellent recent report, “20 Reasons To Buy Equities.” We agree with this view assuming investors are thinking in terms of 12 months and beyond. Chart 15Oil/Gold Ratio Extreme But Wait To Go Long Oil/Gold Ratio Extreme But Wait To Go Long Oil/Gold Ratio Extreme But Wait To Go Long Tactically, however, we maintain the cautious positioning that we adopted on January 24. We have misgivings about the past week’s equity rally. Investors need a clear sense of when the US and European households will start resuming activity. The COVID-19 outbreak is still capable of bringing negative surprises, extending lockdowns, and frightening consumers. Hence we recommend defensive plays that have suffered from indiscriminate selling, rather than cyclical sectors. Go tactically long S&P consumer staples. US Bonds: Over the long run, the Fed’s decision to backstop investment grade corporate bonds also presents a major opportunity to go long on a strategic basis relative to long-dated Treasuries, following our US bond strategists. Global Equities: We prefer global ex-US equities on the basis of relative valuations and US election uncertainty. Shifting policy winds in the United States favor higher taxes and regulation in the coming years. This is true unless President Trump is reelected, which we assess as a 35% chance. Emerging Markets: We are booking gains on our short TRY-USD trade for a gain of 6%. This is a tactical trade that remains fundamentally supported. Book 6% gain on short TRY-USD.   Oil: For a more contrarian trade, we recommend going long oil. Our tactical long oil / short gold trade was stopped out at 5% last week. While we expect mean reversion in this relationship, the basis for gold to rally is strong. Therefore we are going long Brent crude spot prices on Russia’s and Saudi Arabia’s political constraints and global stimulus (Chart 15). We will reconsider the oil/gold ratio at a later date.     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See Joseph T. Wu et al, "Estimating clinical severity of COVID-19 from the transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China," Nature Medicine, March 19, 2020, and Wei-jie Guan et al, "Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China," The New England Journal Of Medicine, February 28, 2020. Section II: Appendix : GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

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

Highlights The global economy is in the midst of a painful recession. Monetary and fiscal authorities are responding forcefully to the crisis, but the lengths of the lockouts and quarantines remain a major source of downside risk to the economy. Investors should favor stocks over bonds during the next year. The short-term outlook remains fraught with danger, so avoid aggressive bets. Central banks can tackle the global liquidity crunch, thus spreads will narrow and the dollar will weaken. The long-term impact of COVID-19 will be inflationary. Feature “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”    Franklin Delano Roosevelt  1932 A violent global recession is underway. Last month, we wrote that a deep economic slump would be unavoidable if COVID-19 cases could not be controlled within two to three weeks.1 Since then, the number of new, recorded COVID-19 cases has mounted every day and fear prevails. Consumers are not spending; firms will face a cash crunch and/or bankruptcy, and employment will be slashed. The next few quarters could result in some of the worst GDP prints since the Great Depression. Risk assets have moved to discount this dire scenario. The global stock-to-bond ratio has collapsed by 47% since its peak on January 17th and stands at the 1st decile of it post-1980 distribution. 10-year US bond yields temporarily fell below 0.4%. The dollar has rallied against every currency and even gold traded below $1500 an ounce. Brent crude trades below $30/bbl. In this context, investors must assess if risk asset prices have declined enough to compensate for the economic hazards created by the COVID-19 pandemic. If the massive amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus announced can turn around the economy in the second half of the year, then stocks and risk assets are attractive. Otherwise, they are still not cheap enough and cash remains king. We think it is a good time to begin to parsimoniously deploy capital into risk assets. A Global Recession And An Extraordinary Response The global economy has suffered its worst shock since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), but policymakers are deploying every tool available. In our base case, GDP will contract more quickly for two quarters than it did during the GFC, and then will recover smartly. It is hard to pinpoint exactly how quickly global GDP will contract in the next six months, but key indicators point to a grim outcome. Chart I-1Global Growth Is Plunging Global Growth Is Plunging Global Growth Is Plunging China’s economy was at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic and its trajectory provides a glimpse into what the rest of the world should anticipate. In February, Chinese retail sales contracted by 20.5% annually and industrial production plunged by 13.5%. The German ZEW survey for March paints an equally bleak picture. The growth expectations component for the Eurozone and Germany fell to its lowest level since the GFC. The same indicator, but computed as an average of US, European and Asian subcomponents is also collapsing at an alarming pace (Chart I-1). The European flash PMI for March also points to a deep slowdown, with the services PMI plunging to 28.4, an all-time low. The performance of EM carry trades flashes a somber warning for our Global Industrial Production Nowcast (Chart I-2). Carry trade returns are imploding because global liquidity is incapable of meeting the demand for precautionary money by economic agents. This lack of liquidity is inflicting enormous damage on worldwide growth. Live trackers for US and global economic activity are also melting down. Traffic in some of the US’s largest cities is a fraction of last year's (Chart I-3). Globally, restaurant bookings have dried up and fewer airlines are flying compared to 2008. Initial jobless claims in the US have surged to 3.28 million, rapidly and decisively overtaking the weaknesses seen during the GFC. Chart I-2The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen Chart I-3Live Trackers Are In Free Fall April 2020 April 2020   Despite the dismal situation, some positive developments are emerging. It has been demonstrated that quarantines contain the spread of the virus. On March 18th, Wuhan recorded no new COVID-19 cases. Moreover, 10 days after its January 24th quarantine began, new cases started to fall off quickly (Chart I-4) in the city. If the recent softening in new cases in Italy’s Lombardy region continues, it will illustrate that democratic regimes can also reduce the pace of infection. Chart I-4Quarantines Do Work April 2020 April 2020 Most importantly, policymakers around the world have shown their willingness to do “whatever it takes.” Governments are easing fiscal policy with abandon. Germany’s state bank KfW is setting aside EUR550 billion to support the economy. France will spend EUR45 billion and has earmarked EUR300 billion in small business loan guarantees. Spain announced EUR200 billion to protect domestic activity. The White House just passed a stimulus package of $2 trillion, and Canada follows suit with a CAD82 billion relief bill. (Table I-1). As A. Walter and J. Chwieroth showed, the growing financial wealth of the middle class is forcing governments to always provide large bailouts after financial crises and recessions. Otherwise, their political parties suffer extreme repudiation from power.2 Table I-1Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic April 2020 April 2020 Central bankers have also become extreme reflators. Nearly every central bank in advanced economies has cut interest rates to zero or into negative territory. Most importantly, central banks have become lenders of last resort. The US Federal Reserve has announced it will engage in unlimited asset purchases; it has reopened various facilities to provide liquidity to the market and is using the US Department of the Treasury to lend directly to the private sector. Among its many measures, the European Central Bank is scrapping artificial limits on its bond purchases that were its capital keys and has offered a EUR750 billion bond purchase program. The ECB is also looking to open its OMT program. Other central banks are injecting cash directly into their domestic markets (Table I-2). The list and size of actions will expand until the markets are satiated with enough liquidity. Table I-2The Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit April 2020 April 2020 The impact of these policy measures is threefold. First, the actions are designed to alleviate the global economy’s cash crunch. Secondly, they aim to support growth directly. The private sector needs direct backing to survive the lack of cash inflows that will develop in the coming weeks. If fiscal and monetary authorities can plug that hole, then spending will not have to collapse as deeply nor for as long as would otherwise be the case. Finally, it is imperative that policymakers boost confidence and ease financial conditions to allow “animal spirits” to stabilize. If risk-taking continues to tailspin, then spending will never recover and the demand for cash will only grow, creating the worst liquidity trap since the Great Depression. Policymakers around the world have shown their willingness to do “whatever it takes.” The economy will continue to weaken in the second half of 2020 if quarantines remain in place beyond the summer. Not being epidemiologists, we are not equipped to make this call with any degree of certainty. Much depends on the evolution of the disease and the political decisions taken. We do not yet know if the population will be willing to endure the economic pain of a depression, or if political pressures will rise to force isolation on those over age 60 and those suffering dangerous comorbidities who are at higher risk, and allow everyone else to return to work and school.3 Investment Implications Part 1: Bonds and Stocks Chart I-5The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated While the short-term outlook remains murky for asset markets, investors with a 12-month or longer investment horizon should begin to move capital into equities at the expense of bonds. Beyond the relative technical and valuation backdrops (Chart I-5), the outlook for fiscal and monetary policy favors this allocation decision. US Treasury yields have dropped from 1.9% at the turn of the year to as low as 0.31% on March 9th. According to the bond market, inflation will average less than 1% during the coming 10 years. The OIS curve is pricing in a fed funds rate of only 68 basis points in five years. In response to this extreme pricing, Treasury bonds are exceptionally expensive (Chart I-6). Moreover, using BCA Research’s Golden Rule of Treasury Investing, there is little scope for yields to fall any lower. The Golden Rule states that the return of Treasury bonds is directly linked to the Fed's rate surprises. If over the next year the Fed cuts interest rates more than is currently priced into the OIS curve, then bond yields will fall in the next 12 months (Chart I-7). Given that the fed funds rate is already at its lower limit, the Fed will not be able to deliver such a dovish surprise and yields will have limited downside. Chart I-6Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Chart I-7The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat   The bond market is also vulnerable from a technical perspective. Our Composite Technical Indicator is as overbought today as it was in December 2008 (Chart I-8). Thus, bond prices are vulnerable to good news. Economic activity will be weak for many months, but the recent policy announcements will boost global fiscal deficits by more than $3 trillion in the next 12 to 18 months. Such a large supply of paper is bearish for bonds, especially when they are very expensive. Moreover, global central banks are engaging in large-scale quantitative easing (QE). Globally, monetary authorities have already announced the equivalent of at least $1.9 trillion in asset purchases. The GFC experience showed that QE programs put upward pressure on Treasury yields (Chart I-9). This time will not be different given the combination of QE, supply disruptions caused by quarantines and large fiscal stimulus. Chart I-8A Dire Combination For Bonds A Dire Combination For Bonds A Dire Combination For Bonds Chart I-9QE Pushes Yields Up QE Pushes Yields Up QE Pushes Yields Up     Equities offer the opposite risk/reward ratio to bonds. Technical indicators are consistent with maximum pessimism toward equities and imply that most of the selloff is behind us, at least for the time being. The Complacency-Anxiety Indicator developed by BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy service points to widespread pessimism among investors,4 an intuition confirmed by our Sentiment indicator (Chart I-10). Moreover, our Equity Capitulation Index is as depressed as in March 2009. Investors with a 12-month or longer investment horizon should begin to move capital into equities at the expense of bonds. Despite the magnitude of the shock hitting the global economy, equities will rally if they become cheap enough and monetary conditions are accommodative enough. The BCA Valuation indicator has collapsed to “undervalued” territory and our Monetary Indicator has never been more supportive of equities (both variables are shown on page 2 of Section III). The gap between these two indicators is at its lowest level since Q1 2009 or 1982, two points that marked the end of bear markets (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Equities Have Capitulated Equities Have Capitulated Equities Have Capitulated Chart I-11Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities   Equity multiples also offer some insight into the risk/reward ratio for stocks. The S&P 500 has collapsed by 34% since its February 19th peak and trades at 13 times forward earnings. True, analysts will revise their forecasts, but the market also only trades at 14 times trailing earnings, which cannot be downgraded. Most importantly, investors are extremely gloomy about expected growth when multiples and risk-free rates are so subdued. Risk assets cannot stabilize durably as long as the demand for dollar liquidity is not satiated. Table I-3Evaluating Where The Floor Lies April 2020 April 2020 We can use a simple discounted cash flow model to extract the expected growth rate of long-term earnings embedded in the S&P 500. To do so, we assume that the ERP is 300 basis points, close to the long-term outperformance of stocks versus bonds. At current multiples and 10-year yields, investors are pricing in a long-term growth rate of -2% annually for earnings (Table I-3). In comparison, investors were more pessimistic in 1974, 2008 and 2011 when they anticipated long-term earnings contractions of -2.5% annually. If we assume that the long-term growth of expected earnings will fall to that depth, then we can estimate trailing P/E multiples will be under different risk-free rates. If yields fall to zero, then the P/E would be 17.7 or a price level of 2,692; however, if they rise to 1.5%, then the P/E would decline to 13.9 or a price level of 2,115 (Table I-3). Chart I-12Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated This method suggests that 2200 is the S&P 500’s likely floor. Risk-free rates and the expected growth rate of long-term earnings are correlated series because the anticipated evolution of economic activity drives both real interest rates and earnings (Chart I-12). Thus, it is unlikely that yields will climb if expected earnings growth falls. Instead, if the expected growth rate of long-term earnings drops to -2.5%, then yields should stand between 1% and 0.5%, implying equilibrium trailing P/Es of 15 to 16.3 times, or prices levels of 2,278 to 2,468. P/E will only fall much further if the dollar scramble lasts longer. As investors seek cash and liquidate all assets, the process can push anticipated growth rates lower while pulling bond yields higher (see next section).   Investment Implications Part 2: The Uncontrolled Liquidity Crunch Is Still An Immediate Risk Risk assets cannot stabilize durably as long as the demand for dollar liquidity is not satiated. The large programs announced around the world seem to be calming this liquidity crunch. However, the situation is fluid and the crunch can come back at a moment's notice. Despite the magnitude of the shock hitting the global economy, equities will rally if they become cheap enough and monetary conditions are accommodative enough. Credit spreads blew up as investors priced in the inevitable increase in defaults that accompanies recessions (Chart I-13). Junk spreads moved to as high as 1100 basis points, their highest level since 2009. If we assume that next year, US EBITDA contracts by its average post-war magnitude (a timid assumption), then the interest coverage ratio will deteriorate to readings not seen since the S&L crisis, which will force default rates higher (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Defaults Will Rise Defaults Will Rise Defaults Will Rise Chart I-14Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate     The anticipated contraction in cash flows creates another more pernicious and dangerous consequence: an insatiable demand for dollar liquidity by the private sector. Companies are worried they may not generate the necessary cash flows to service their debt. This is especially worrisome for foreign borrowers who have loans in US dollars. The BIS estimates that foreign currency debt denominated in USDs stands at $12 trillion. Meanwhile, these foreign borrowers are hoarding dollars. The risk aversion of US-based companies is accentuating the dollar crunch. US companies have pulled on their credit lines en masse. US commercial banks must provide this cash to their clients. However, US banks must still meet liquidity requirements imposed by the Basel III rules. As a result, the banks are also hoarding as much cash as possible in the form of excess reserves and curtailed their capital market lending, especially in the repo market. Repos are the lifeblood of capital markets and without repos, market liquidity (the ability to sell and buy securities) quickly deteriorates. This chain of events has caused a sharp widening in Treasury bid-ask spreads, LIBOR-OIS spreads and commercial paper-T-Bill spreads, and has fueled weaknesses in mortgage and municipal bond markets (Chart I-15). The evaporation of the repo market accentuates the foreign liquidity crunch. Without functioning repo markets, dollar funding in offshore markets becomes more onerous, as highlighted by the widening in global cross-currency basis swap spreads (Chart I-16). Borrowers are buying dollars at any cost. This has led to the surge in the dollar from March 9th, which forced the collapse of risky currencies such as the NOK, the BRL or the MXN, but also of safe-haven currencies such as the JPY and the CHF. Chart I-15Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Chart I-16Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage   The strength in the dollar is problematic. As a symptom of the liquidity crunch, it accompanies forced selling of assets by investors seeking to acquire cash. Moreover, the USD is a funding currency, hence a strong dollar also tightens the global cost of capital for all foreign borrowers who have tapped into US capital markets. For US firms, it also accentuates deflationary pressures and the resulting lower price of goods sold increases the risk of bankruptcies. Thus, a strong dollar would feed the weakness in asset prices and further widen credit spreads. Moreover, because the liquidity crunch hurts growth and can concurrently push yields higher, it could pull P/Es below 15 and drive equity prices far below our 2,200 floor. On the positive side, central banks worldwide are keenly aware of the danger created by the liquidity crunch. The Fed has started and restarted a long list of liquidity facilities (Table I-2). Its unlimited QE program also addresses the dollar shortage directly by expanding the supply of money. Crucially, the Fed has re-opened dollar swap lines with other central banks, including emerging markets such as Korea, Singapore, Mexico and Brazil. Even the ECB and the Bank of England are relaxing liquidity ratios for their banks, which at the margin will alleviate the supply of liquidity in their domestic economies. The Fed will likely follow its European counterparts, which could play a large role in alleviating the global dollar shortage. Investors seeking to assess if the supply of liquidity is large enough should pay close attention to gold prices. The global, large-scale fiscal stimulus programs will also address the dollar liquidity crisis. When investors judge there is sufficient fiscal stimulus to put a floor under global economic activity, the markets will take a more sanguine view of the risk of default. If large enough, government spending will support corporate cash flows and, therefore, limit corporate bankruptcies. Consequently, demand for liquidity will also decline and mass asset liquidations will ebb. Chart I-17Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Investors seeking to assess if the supply of liquidity is large enough should look for some key market signals. We pay close attention to gold prices; after March 9th they fell despite the global spike in risk aversion due to gold's extreme sensitivity to global liquidity conditions. Both today and in the fall of 2008, gold prices fell when illiquidity grew. Our gold fair-value model shows that the precious metal is extremely sensitive to inflation expectations and real bond yields (Chart I-17). As illiquidity grows and the dollar appreciates, inflation breakevens collapse and real yields spike. Thus, the recent gold rebound suggests that the Fed and other major central banks have expanded the supply of liquidity sufficiently to meet demand, the price of money will fall (real interest rates) and inflation expectations will rebound. Monitor whether gold can remain well bid. Investment Implications Part 3: FX And Commodity Markets Chart I-18China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China’s stimulus will be a key driver of the FX market in the post-liquidity-crunch world. Historically, because Chinese reflation has lifted the global manufacturing cycle, it possesses a large influence on the dollar’s trend (Chart I-18). We believe that China’s stimulus will be comparable to the one implemented in 2008 and will boost global growth. Moreover, the interest rate advantage of the US has declined and global macro volatility will not remain at current extremes for an extended time. These three factors (Chinese stimulus, lower interest rate differentials and declining volatility) will weigh on the USD in the coming 18 months (Chart I-18, bottom panel). EM currencies and the AUD will benefit most from the dollar depreciation later this year. In the short term, these currencies remain exposed to any flare up in the liquidity crunch and can cheapen further. But, as Chart I-19 highlights, investing in those currencies will likely generate long-term excess returns because they have cheapened significantly. Commodities, too, are becoming attractive at current valuations. Industrial metals such as copper will benefit greatly from China’s stimulus. A rising Chinese credit and fiscal impulse lifts the price of base metals because it pushes up Chinese infrastructure spending as well as residential and capex investment (Chart I-20). Moreover, a lower dollar and accommodative global monetary policy will further boost the appeal of industrial metals. Chart I-19EM FX Is Cheap EM FX Is Cheap EM FX Is Cheap Chart I-20China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China’s stimulus will be a key driver of the FX market in the post-liquidity-crunch world. The oil outlook is particularly unclear as both demand and supply factors are in flux. At $27/bbl, Brent is cheap enough to compensate investors for the decline in demand that will emerge between now and the end of the second quarter. However, the market-share war between Saudi Arabia and Russia layers on the problem of supply risk. Saudi Aramco is set to increase production to 12.3 million barrels by April and Saudi’s GCC allies have announced they are increasing output as well. According to BCA Research’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service, the oil market is already oversupplied by 1.6 million barrels per day, a number that will expand if the KSA and its allies fulfill their production pledges. If this situation persists, oil will lag behind industrial metals when global risk aversion recedes. Nonetheless, our commodity strategists believe that the collapse in oil prices is more painful for Russia than for KSA. We believe there will be a compromise between OPEC and Russia in the coming weeks that will push supply lower.5 Additionally, the Texas Railroad Commission is preparing to impose limitations on Texas oil production, which has not been done since the 1970s. Such a decision would magnify any rebound in oil prices. Thinking Long-Term: The Return Of Stagflation? The COVID-19 outbreak will likely be viewed as an epoch-defining moment. The policy response to the outbreak will be far reaching and the disease will change the way firms manage supply chains for decades to come. There will be a substantial pullback in globalization. COVID-19 has generated an inflationary shock in the medium term. Chart I-21War Spending Is Always Inflationary War Spending Is Always Inflationary War Spending Is Always Inflationary COVID-19 has generated an inflationary shock in the medium term. Governments have suddenly abandoned their preferences for fiscal rectitude. The US deficit will reach a peacetime record of 15% of GDP. These are war-like spending measures. In history, gold standard or not, wars were the main reason for inflationary outbreaks as they involved massive budgetary expansions (Chart I-21). The large monetary easing accompanying the current fiscal expansion will only add to this inflationary impulse. Many of the proposals discussed by governments involve funneling cash directly to households, while central banks buy bonds issued by the same government. This is very close to helicopter money. These policies will increase the velocity of money, which is structurally inflationary (Chart I-22). Naysayers may point to the lack of inflation created by QE programs in the direct aftermath of the GFC. However, at that time, households and commercial banks were much sicker. Today, capital ratios in the US and the Eurozone are 60% and 33% higher than in 2007, respectively (Chart I-23). Thus, banks are much more likely to add to money creation instead of retracting from it as they did in the last cycle. Chart I-22If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation Chart I-23Banks Are Much Healthier Than In 2008 April 2020 April 2020   Chart I-24Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Markets are not ready for higher inflation. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swaps in the US and the euro area stand at only 1.6% and 0.7%, respectively. Household long-term inflation expectations are also at all-time lows (Chart I-24). Therefore, an increase in inflation will have a deep impact on asset prices. The first implication is that gold prices have probably begun a new structural bull market. Inflation will surprise on the upside and keep real interest rates lower. Both these factors are highly bullish for the yellow metal. Additionally, easy fiscal policy and money printing will devalue currencies versus hard assets, which will benefit all precious metals, including gold. EM central banks have recently been diversifying aggressively in gold, which will add another impetuous to its rally. The second implication is that the stock-to-bond ratio has structural upside. Equities are not a perfect inflation hedge, but their profits can rise when selling prices accelerate. However, bonds display rock bottom real yields, inflation protection and term premia. Moreover, their low-running yields are below the dividend yields of equities, which has also boosted bond duration to record levels. Therefore, bonds offer even less protection against higher inflation. Hence, the stock-to-bond ratio will probably follow the historical experience of the 20th century structural bull market and inflect higher (Chart I-25). However, this outperformance will not stem from the superior performance of stocks in real terms; rather, it will emerge from a very poor performance by bonds. Chart I-25The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map Thirdly, the structural relative bear market in EM equities will likely end soon. EM equities will enjoy strong real asset prices and EM assets have much more appealing valuations than DM stocks. This is an imbedded inflation protection. The world is witnessing a fiscal and monetary push that will result in lower productivity growth and profit margins, along with feared inflation. The next decade could increasingly look like the stagflationary 1970s. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 26, 2020 Next Report: April 30, 2020   II. Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the real neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even once economic recovery takes hold unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). This report revisits the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrates why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. We also outline an inferential approach that investors can use to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. The core conclusion for investors is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, investors should avoid dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about yields as they may rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. Over the past several weeks financial markets have moved rapidly to price in a global recession stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. As financial market participants began to turn to policy makers for support, eyes focused first on the Federal Reserve, and then fiscal authorities. Earlier this week, the ECB joined the party and announced aggressive further measures of its own. When responding to the Fed’s return to the lower bound and its other recent monetary policy decisions, many market participants have expressed the view that the Fed is largely impotent to deal with a global pandemic. There are three elements to this view. The first is that interest rate cuts are ill equipped to stimulate domestic demand if quarantine measures or other forms of “social distancing” are in effect. The second element is that the Fed has only been capable of delivering a fraction of the reduction in interest rates compared to what has occurred in response to previous contractions. The third aspect of this view is that because the neutral rate of interest is so much lower now than it was in the past, Fed rate cuts will not be as stimulative as they were before. Chart II-1Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate While we at least partly agree with the first and second elements of this view, we feel strongly that the third is flawed. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013,6 and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. This time series, which is regularly updated by the New York Fed,7 suggests that the real fed funds rate reached neutral territory in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart II-1). With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even beyond the near term unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). In this Special Report we revisit the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrate why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. Our analysis does not reveal a precise alternative estimate of the neutral rate, although we do provide some inferential perspective on how investors may be able to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. However, the core insight emanating from our report, particularly for US fixed income investors, is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once economic activity recovers. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise may be larger than many investors currently expect. Demystifying The LW R-star Estimate The LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest has gained credibility for three reasons. First, as noted above, the evolution of the series fits with the secular stagnation narrative re-popularized by Larry Summers. Second, the series is essentially sponsored by the Federal Reserve even if it is not officially part of the Fed’s forecasting framework, as its two creators are long-time Fed employees (Thomas Laubach is a director of the Fed’s Board of Governors, and John Williams is the current President of the New York Fed). But, in our view, there is a third important reason that global investors have accepted the LW R-star estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the methodology used to generate the estimate is extremely technically complex, and thus is difficult for most investors to penetrate. Much of the technical complexity of the LW estimate is centered around the use of a statistical procedure called a Kalman filter (“KF”). Simply described, the KF is an algorithm that tries to estimate an unobservable variable based on 1) an idea of how the unobservable variable might relate to an observable variable (the “measurement equation”), and 2) an idea of how the unobservable variable might change through time (the “transition equation”). Through a repeated process of simulating the unobserved variable based on a set of assumptions, the KF is able to compare predicted results to actual results on an observation-by-observation basis, and use that information to generate ever more reliable future estimates of the unobserved variable (Chart II-2). Chart II-2A Very Simplified Overview Of The Kalman Filter Algorithm April 2020 April 2020 We acknowledge that a full technical treatment of the Kalman Filter as it relates to the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest is beyond the scope of this report, and we provide a more technical overview in Box II-1. But what emerges from a detailed analysis of the model is that the Kalman Filter jointly estimates R-star, potential GDP growth, potential GDP, and the variable “z”, the determinants of R-star that are not explained by potential GDP growth. As we will highlight in the next section, this joint estimation of these four variables is a crucial aspect of the model, because a valid estimate of R-star necessitates a valid estimate of the remaining variables. BOX II-1 A Technical Overview Of The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Chart Box II-1 shows that there are three sets of formulas involved in the LW estimation: the “law of motion” for the neutral rate of interest, two measurement equations, and three transition equations. The law of motion for the neutral rate is fairly simple: R-star is a function of trend real GDP growth, as well as “other factors” represented by the variable “z”. Laubach & Williams note that z “captures factors such as households’ rate of time preference”. The measurement equations are also fairly straightforward. First, the (unobservable) output gap is a function of lagged values of itself as well as the lagged real Fed funds rate gap (relative to the unobservable neutral rate). Second, inflation is a function of lagged values of itself, past values of the output gap, relative core import prices, and lagged relative imported oil prices (the latter two variables are included to capture potential supply shocks to inflation). Note that this second measurement equation is required for the model to work, as it relates the unobservable output gap to observable inflation. As presented in Chart II-2, the three transition equations are present to simulate how the unobservable variables might move through time. Potential growth and potential output are a random walk, and “z” from the law of motion follows either a random walk or an autoregressive process. Chart Box II-1The Laubach & Williams R-star Model April 2020 April 2020 Debunking The LW R-star Estimate Before criticizing the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest, it is important for us to note that we have the utmost respect for the Federal Reserve and its research methods. We fully acknowledge that the LW R-star estimation is rooted in solid economic theory, and we have identified no technical errors in the setup of the LW model. Nevertheless, valid analytical efforts sometimes lead to problematic real-world results, and there are two key reasons to believe that the Kalman filter in the LW model is almost certainly misspecifying R-star, at least in terms of its estimate over the past two decades. The first reason relates to the sensitivity of the model to the interval of estimation (the period over which R-star is estimated). Chart II-3 presents the range of quarterly estimates of R-star since 2005, along with the difference between the high and low end of the range in the second panel. The chart shows that while previous estimates of R-star have generally been stable for values ranging between the early-1980s and 2006/2007, pre-1980 estimates have varied quite substantially and we have seen material revisions to the estimates over the past decade. Q1 2018 serves as an excellent example: in that quarter R-star was estimated to be 0.14%; today, the Q1 2018 R-star estimate sits at 0.92%. Chart II-3Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates However, Table II-1 and Chart II-4 highlight the real instability of the Kalman filter estimation by demonstrating the effect of varying the starting point of the model (please see Box II-2 for a brief description of how our estimation of R-star using the LW approach differs slightly from the original procedure). Laubach & Williams originally estimated R-star beginning in Q1 1961; Table II-1 shows what happens to today’s estimate of R-star simply by incrementally varying the starting point of the model from Q1 1958 to Q4 1979. Table II-1Alternative Current LW Estimates Of R-star By Model Starting Point April 2020 April 2020 Chart II-4Alternative Starting Points Produce Wildly Different Estimates Of R-star Today April 2020 April 2020 BOX II-2 The Laubach & Williams R-star Model With Simplified Inflation Expectations To proxy inflation expectations in their model, Laubach & Williams use a “forecast of the four-quarter-ahead percentage change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy (“core PCE prices”) generated from a univariate AR(3) of inflation estimated over the prior 40 quarters”. The authors note that a simplified measure of expectations, a 4-quarter moving average of quarterly annualized core inflation, does not materially alter their results. For the sake of parsimony we use this simplified measure in our analysis. We find that the effect shifts the current estimate of R-star only slightly (+10 basis points), and that the historical differences between our version of the 1961 estimation and the official series are indeed minor. The table highlights that the model fails to even generate a result in a majority of the cases (only 39 out of 88 of the model runs were error-free). In addition, Chart II-4 shows that of the successful estimates of R-star using the LW procedure and alternate starting dates of the model, the estimate of R-star today varies from -2% (in one case) to +2%. Excluding the one extremely negative outlier results in an effective estimate range of 0% to 2%, but the key point for investors is that this range is massive and underscores that the original model’s estimate of R-star today is heavily and unduly influenced by the interval of estimation. Investors should also note that of all of the alternative estimates of R-star today shown in Chart II-4, the estimate using the original interval is very much on the low end of the distribution. The second (and most important) reason to believe that the LW estimate is misspecifying R-star is that the output gap estimate generated by the model is almost certainly invalid, at least over the past two decades. Chart II-5presents the LW output gap estimate alongside an average of the CBO, OECD, and IMF estimates of the gap; panel 1 shows the official current LW output gap estimate, whereas panel 2 shows the range of output gap estimates that are generated using the different estimation intervals highlighted in Table II-1 and Chart II-4. Chart II-5The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades Given that the Kalman filter in the LW model jointly determines R-star and the output gap (by way of estimating potential output via estimating potential GDP growth) and that these estimates are dependent on each other, Chart II-5 highlights that in order to believe the LW R-star estimate investors must believe three things: That the US economy was chronically below potential in the late-1990s when the unemployment rate was below 5%, real GDP growth averaged nearly 5%, and the equity market was booming, That output exceeded potential in 2004/2005 by a magnitude not seen since the late-1970s / early-1980s despite an average unemployment rate, That the 2008/2009 US recession was not particularly noteworthy in terms of its deviation from potential output, and that the economy had returned to potential output by 2010/2011 when the unemployment rate was in the range of 8-9%. Chart II-6The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 While we do not believe any of these three statements, the third is especially unlikely. Chart II-6 highlights that the economic expansion from 2009 – 2020 was the weakest on record in the post-war era in terms of average annual real per capita GDP growth. To us, this is a clear symptom of a chronic deficiency in aggregate demand, and that it is essentially unreasonable to argue that the economy was operating at full employment prior to 2014/2015. This means that the Kalman filter is generating incorrect and unreliable estimates of the output gap, which means in turn that the filter’s estimation of R-star is almost assuredly wrong. How Can Investors Tell What The Neutral Rate Is? An Inferential Approach Table II-2 presents the sensitivity of the original Q1 1961 LW estimate of R-star to a series of counterfactual scenarios for inflation, real GDP growth, nominal interest rates, and import and oil prices since mid-2009. While these scenarios do not in any way improve the validity of the LW R-star estimate, they do help clarify the theoretical basis of the model and they help reveal how investors may infer whether the neutral rate of interest is higher or lower than prevailing market rates, and whether it is rising or falling. Table II-2Sensitivity Of Current LW R-star Estimate To Counterfactual Scenarios (2009 - Present) April 2020 April 2020 Chart II-7Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Table II-2 highlights that today’s estimate of R-star using the original LW approach is mostly sensitive to our counterfactual scenarios for growth and interest rates, but not inflation or oil prices. Shifting down import price growth also has a meaningful effect on R-star, but since core import price growth has been particularly weak over the past several years (Chart II-7), it seems unreasonable to suggest that they have been abnormally high and thus “explain” a low R-star estimate today. Table II-2 essentially highlights that the entire question of the neutral rate of interest over the past decade, and the core contradiction that led to the re-emergence of the secular stagnation thesis, can effectively be boiled down to the following simple question: “Why hasn’t US economic growth been stronger this cycle, given that interest rates have been so low?” Based on the (hopefully uncontroversial) view that interest rates influence economic activity and that economic activity influences inflation, we propose the following checklist for investors to ask themselves in order to not only determine the answer to this important question, but to help identify whether R-star in any given country is likely higher or lower than existing policy rates at any given point in time. Are interest rates above or below the prevailing level of economic growth? Are interest rates rising or falling, and how intensely? Are there identifiable non-monetary shocks (positive or negative) that appear to be influencing economic activity? Is private sector credit growth keeping pace with economic growth? Are debt service burdens in the economy high or low? The first question reflects the most basic view of R-star, which is that the real neutral rate of interest should be equal to, or at least closely related to, the potential growth rate of the economy, ceteris paribus. Questions 2 through 5 attempt to determine whether ceteris paribus holds. In terms of how the answers to these questions relate to identifying the neutral rate, consider two economies, “Economy A” and “Economy B” (Chart II-8). Economy A has broadly stable or slightly rising interest rates that are well below prevailing rates of economic growth (questions 1 & 2), no obvious beneficial shocks to domestic demand from fiscal policy or other factors (question 3), and strong private sector credit growth that is perhaps above or strongly above the current pace of GDP growth (question 4). Chart II-8'Economy A', Versus 'Economy B' April 2020 April 2020 Inferentially, it would seem that interest rates in this hypothetical economy are below R-star today. Question 5 is in our list because the more that active private sector leveraging occurs (thus pushing up debt burdens), the more that we would expect R-star in the future to fall. This is because debt payments as a share of income cannot rise forever, and we would expect that the capacity of economy A’s central bank to raise interest rates in the future are negatively related to economy A’s private sector debt service burden today. Now, imagine another economy (“Economy B”) with interest rates well below average rates of economic growth, an interest rate trend that is flat-to-down, no identifiable non-monetary policy shocks that are restricting aggregate demand, persistently sluggish credit growth, and high private sector debt service burdens in the past. If economy B is growing (even sluggishly) and not in the middle of a recession, it would seem that prevailing interest rates are below R-star, but not significantly so. In this scenario it would seem reasonable to conclude that R-star in economy B has fallen non-trivially below its potential growth rate, and that interest rate increases are likely to move monetary policy into restrictive territory earlier than otherwise would be the case. Is The United States “Economy B”? From the perspective of some investors, our description of economy B above perfectly captures the experience of the US over the past decade: an extremely low Fed funds rate, sluggish to weak growth and inflation, all the result of a huge build-up in leverage and debt service burdens during the last economic cycle. We do not doubt that R-star fell in the US for some period of time during the global financial crisis and in the early phase of the economic recovery. But we doubt that it is as low today as the secular stagnation narrative would imply, in large part because it ignores several important aspects concerning questions 2 through 5 noted above. Chart II-9Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies: Over the past 12 years, there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnect between growth and interest rates: 1) a prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014, 2) the euro area sovereign debt crisis, 3) fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 (Chart II-9), 4) the US dollar / oil price shock of 2014, and 5) the recent trade war between the US and China. Several of these shocks have been policy-driven, and in the case of austerity the negative consequences of that policy has led to a lasting change in thinking among fiscal authorities (outside of Japan) that is unlikely to reverse in the near-future. Chart II-10Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Private sector credit growth: Chart II-10 highlights the extent of household deleveraging noted above by showing the growth in total household liabilities over the past decade alongside income growth. Panel 2 shows the leveraging trend of firms, as represented by the nonfinancial corporate sector debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart II-10 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it is now growing again and has largely closed the gap with income growth. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector has clearly leveraged itself over the course of the expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. While it is true that firms have largely leveraged themselves to buy back stock instead of significantly increasing capital expenditures, in our view this reflects the fact that US consumer demand was impaired for several years due to deleveraging. We doubt that firms would have altered their capital structures to this degree if they did not view interest rates as extremely low. Debt service burdens: Chart II-11 highlights that US household debt service burdens were at very elevated levels prior to the financial crisis, suggesting that the neutral rate did fall for some time following the recession. But today, the debt burden facing households is the lowest it has been in the past 40 years due to both rate reductions and deleveraging, arguing against the view that household debt levels will structurally weigh on interest rates in the years to come. Chart II-12 shows that the picture is different for nonfinancial corporations, as the substantial leveraging noted above has indeed raised debt service burdens for firms. However, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio remains 400 basis points below early-2000 levels when excess corporate sector liabilities had a clear impact on the economy, suggesting that the Fed’s capacity to raise interest rates still exists following the onset of economic recovery if corporate sector credit growth does not rise sharply relative to GDP over the coming 6-12 months. Chart II-11The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low Chart II-12Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise   The intensity of recent interest rate changes: Finally, many investors have pointed to sluggish housing activity over the past three years as evidence of a low neutral rate. However, Chart II-13 highlights that the rise in the 30-year US mortgage rate from late-2016 to late-2018 was one of the largest two-year changes in US history, and Chart II-14 shows that the growth in household mortgage credit did not fall below its trend during this period until Q4 2018, when the US stock market fell 20% from its high in response to the economic consequences of the US/China trade war. Chart II-14 also shows that mortgage credit growth responded sharply to a recent reduction in interest rates. All in all, Charts II-13 & II-14 cast doubt on the notion that the level of mortgage rates over the past three years reached restrictive territory. Chart II-13Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Chart II-14A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market   Investment Conclusions In the face of a global pandemic and an attendant global recession this year, the idea of eventual Fed rate hikes and the notion that the US economy will be able to tolerate them likely seems preposterous to many investors. We agree that over the coming 6-12 months US Treasury yields are unlikely to rise; even at current levels of the 10-year Treasury yield, we are reluctant to call a trough. Chart II-15US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade However, Chart II-15highlights that over a long-term time horizon, the bond market is now essentially priced for a repeat of the ten-year path of the Fed funds rate following the global financial crisis. While some investors will view this as a reasonable expectation in the face of what they see as a persistent and unexplainable gap between growth and interest rates over the past decade, we think this gap is explainable and we highly doubt that a pandemic with minimal mortality risk to the working age population and the young will cause the US economy to be afflicted with active consumer deleveraging lasting 4 to 6-years, substantial and wide-ranging fiscal austerity, persistently rising trade tariffs, and sharply lower oil prices. So while we agree that the US economy will be substantially cyclically affected by COVID-19, US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise following the upcoming recession may be larger than many investors currently believe.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we continued to strike a cautious tactical tone. Valuations were not depressed enough to compensate investors for the lack of clarity around the path of COVID-19. In other words, there was not enough of a risk premium imbedded in asset prices if COVID-19 cases were to spread around the world. Now that COVID-19 has spread around the planet, asset valuations have adjusted massively. The BCA Valuation Indicator for the S&P 500 is now in undervalued territory, thanks to both lower prices and interest rates. Meanwhile, the BCA Monetary Indicator has never been more accommodative than it is today. Together, these two indicators suggest that twelve months from now, equities will stand at higher levels than they do today. Tactically, equities have most probably found their floor. Both our Composite Sentiment Indicator and the VIX are consistent with a capitulation. Anecdotal evidences also point to a capitulation by retail investors. Additionally, Our RPI indicator is finally starting to try to turn up. Nonetheless, equities will likely re-test their Monday March 23rd floor as the length of US and global quarantines that are so damaging to growth (but for now, necessary) remain uncertain. The cleanest way to express a positive 12-month outlook on equities is to bet on a rise in the stock-to-bond ratio. 10-year Treasurys are as expensive as they were in late 2008 and early 1986, two periods followed by rapid rises in yields. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicators is 2.5 sigma overbought. The yield curve is steepening anew, which confirms the intuition that yields will experience significant upside over the coming 12 months. On a longer-term basis, inflation expectations are too low to compensate investors for the inflation risk created by a larger monetary and fiscal expansion than the one witnessed in 2008. That being said, EM sovereigns are getting attractive for long-term investors.  Following the surge in the dollar that accompanied the liquidity crunch that surrounded the COVID-19 panic, the dollar is now trading at its most expensive level since 1985. The large liquidity injections by the Fed should cap the dollar for now, but the greenback will need more clarity on the end of global quarantines before it can fall decisively. Nonetheless, it will depreciate significantly once the global economy rebounds due to the powerful reflationary impulse building up around the world. Finally, commodity prices are retesting their 2008 lows. They are not as oversold as they were then, but this is good sign as the advance/decline line of our Continuous Commodity Index continues to trend higher. Thus, if as we expect, the dollar’s surge is ending, commodities are likely to be in the process of finding a floor right now. Once investors become more optimistic about the outlook for global growth, commodities will likely rebound sharply, maybe even more so than stocks. Therefore, it is a good time to begin accumulating metals, energy and equities as well as FX linked to natural resources prices. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "March 2020," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Chwieroth, Jeffrey M., Walter, Andrew, The Wealth Effect: How the Great Expectations of the Middle Class Have Changed the Politics of Banking Crises, 2019. 3  A relaxation of social-distancing measures would likely mean that large-scale gatherings are still prohibited, and life would not return to normal for a long time. 4  Please see US Equity Strategy "The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn," dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy "KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War," dated March 19, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 6  "IMF Fourteenth Annual Research Conference in Honor of Stanley Fischer," Washington DC, November 8, 2013. 7  "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Highlights Financial markets are in a state of upheaval, and no one knows where or when they’ll bottom: We reiterate that it’s too early to dive back into equities or spread product. The policy path is not nearly as clear as it was during the last crisis, and central banks and legislatures may be hard-pressed to blunt the effects of a pandemic until it’s contained: Developed-world central banks and legislatures are committed to doing whatever they can to aid their economies, but their measures won’t gain full traction until the coronavirus is bottled up. Uncertainty breeds opportunities, however, … : There’s a good chance that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater as the selling accentuates and turns indiscriminate. … so we’re seeking out the most attractive risk-reward profiles: Those with cash who keep their head may find multiple opportunities to earn outsized profits. We’re actively trying to insulate ourselves from the current surge of emotion. Feature We don’t know. We don’t know where stocks will bottom, or when. We don’t know how much the economy will contract, or how long second-round effects will extend the recession. We don’t know how many businesses will go bust, or how many people will lose jobs and default on mortgages and other loans. But no one ever does in the midst of crashes, or when a sudden-stop economic tsunami looms, and only the foolish, naïve or arrogant think they do. Investing is never a sure thing, and its difficulty is a feature, not a bug. Alpha is earned by correctly intuiting securities’ future direction from a limited number of data points. We were slow to grasp the global health ramifications of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, and the probability of a 2020 recession turned out to be considerably larger than we judged. We were also off the mark when we said the economy would likely bottom swiftly, roughly tracing the course of a V. We did not foresee the economically crippling strictures that would be imposed to slow COVID-19’s spread. We now recognize that the recession will be quite severe and that the market rout has further to go for as long as the self-reinforcing adverse consequences from quarantine-like conditions continue unabated. We suspect that markets are giving short shrift to the idea that something could short-circuit the vicious circle, however, and on that basis we think the outlook may not be as unrelentingly gloomy as market action is making it out to be. To be clear, we do not think risk assets have bottomed. We do not think investors should be in any rush whatsoever to buy stocks or spread product. Investors with cash should not lose sight of the fact that they are in control right now, and they should strike a hard bargain before parting with it. We still have a constructive 12-month view, however, and we do think investors should be making lists of assets they find attractive and the prices where they’d happily own them. We sketch out the reasons why across the following pages, but the nature of the analysis departs from our typical data-driven process. Market action has left the data far behind as investors have rushed to apply valuation haircuts in advance of economic releases that are sure to be dreadful. We are therefore pulling our focus out to 30,000 feet in this report, and highlighting the mindset we’re trying to bring to the task of navigating markets caught in the throes of peak fear. Crises Happen [W]hen the crisis began, governments around the world were too slow to act. When action came, it was late and inadequate. Policy was always behind the curve, always chasing an escalating crisis. And as the crisis intensified and more dramatic government action was required, the emergency actions meant to provide confidence and reassurance too often added to public anxiety and to investor uncertainty. The force of government support was not comprehensive or quick enough to withstand the deepening pressure brought on by a weakening economy. … We believe that the policy response has to be comprehensive, and forceful. There is more risk and greater cost in gradualism than in aggressive action. We believe that action has to be sustained until recovery is firmly established.1 Monetary and fiscal policy measures can still move markets, but their full effect won't be felt until the coronavirus is contained. Here we go again. Confronted with freefalling markets and the prospect of widespread business failures, Congress is preparing a gigantic fiscal stimulus package aimed at limiting the second-order effects of the crippling measures implemented to stem COVID-19’s spread and the Fed has already raided its 2008-9 playbook (Table 1). Officials could lift much of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s 2009 remarks announcing the stress tests to explain the rationale for the measures they’re proposing now. The difference is that policymakers in 2008 and 2009 could directly wield their monetary and fiscal tools to backstop a wobbling banking system, whereas now, the potent resources they’ve marshaled to spur the economy won’t be able to take full effect until the pandemic recedes. Table 1Borrowing From The 2008-09 Playbook Data Independent Data Independent As much as investors pine for a policy measure that puts a firewall around markets, and the cumulative global monetary and fiscal responses become truly substantial, the selloff may continue to rage until withering deleveraging pressure abates. The pattern may be very similar to 2009, when the S&P 500 didn’t bottom until four weeks after the financial crisis effectively ended upon Secretary Geithner’s pledge that the Treasury would provide sufficient capital to any of the largest 19 banks that failed the stress tests (Chart 1). Chart 1Deleveraging Pressure Might Drag On Stocks Even After Policymakers Fire Their Bazookas Deleveraging Pressure Might Drag On Stocks Even After Policymakers Fire Their Bazookas Deleveraging Pressure Might Drag On Stocks Even After Policymakers Fire Their Bazookas One Damn Thing After Another As we noted at the outset, investors are currently bedeviled by a multitude of significant unknowns about the coronavirus. Even epidemiologists don’t know if social distancing measures will be enough to arrest its spread within the US, how severe the mortality rate will be, or how long it will take to develop more effective treatment protocols. The current plunge was triggered by a pandemic that hadn’t occurred on a similar scale since the 1918-19 Spanish influenza outbreak, but significant unknowns are at the heart of every financial market panic. We were in the audience at the Economic Club of New York in October 2007, during the early stages of the subprime crisis, when Fed Chair Bernanke, asked what market and economic information he would like to have to improve the Fed’s decision-making process, replied, “I’d like to know what those damn things [securitized credit products] are worth.”2 Markets’ Outstanding Characteristic As Benjamin Graham pointed out repeatedly in The Intelligent Investor, markets have a deeply entrenched tendency to overreact. “The market is always making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating ordinary vicissitudes into major setbacks.”3 “[W]hen an individual company … begins to lose ground in the economy, Wall Street is quick to assume that its future is entirely hopeless and it should be avoided at any price.”4 “[T]he outstanding characteristic of the stock market is its tendency to react excessively to favorable and unfavorable influences.”5 In times of severe stress, the market tendency to overreact at the individual-stock level radiates out to the entire market. As the buzzards circle, and the margin calls arrive, investors scramble to sell stocks that have managed to dodge the brunt of the decline, and therefore bring something closer to their perceived fair value than the stocks that have already been savaged. In Dennis Gartman’s memorable phrasing, “when the cops raid the house of ill repute, they take away the good girls and the piano player, too.” The indiscriminate selling that draws better stocks into the vortex creates opportunities, and it seems to us that there must be many sound issues that are being tarred with the same brush as companies in the travel, hospitality, restaurant and brick-and-mortar retail industries, and the oil producers who are caught in the Russia-Saudi Arabia crossfire. Outstanding Investors’ Characteristics About 25 years ago, we read the Market Wizards profiles of elite traders before interviewing for trading positions with broker-dealers. We distilled them into seven characteristics of successful traders that were at the heart of our pitch: Competitiveness, Humility, Ability to Psychologically Handle Losses, Patience, Discipline, Emotional Detachment and Willingness to Be a Contrarian. We haven’t worked on a trading desk in a while, but those qualities would suit all investors, and we think they’re especially apropos at times of peak emotion. No one can manufacture them out of nothing, but by keeping them in mind, and trying to live up to them, we can draw on the reserves we do possess to make better decisions in the midst of the rout (Table 2). Cash is precious right now, and investors should part with it only when they're certain they're getting quite a bit in return. Table 2Honing One's Mental Edge Data Independent Data Independent What Now? We reiterate that it is too early to re-risk portfolios. Markets in the throes of daily convulsions are not healthy markets, and we do not expect that stocks will bottom until there is evidence that the global virus infection curve is flattening. Investors should always prune or exit positions that have become poor fits as the backdrop changes, but we would not dramatically alter asset allocation strategies now. Take a deep breath, and focus on the internal aspects you can control. Cash is precious during major selloffs, because it stabilizes portfolios while the storm rages and provides valuable optionality when it inevitably ends. We would deploy it slowly, via limit orders below the market in selected stocks that have been unfairly lumped in with the most vulnerable issues. We continue to embrace the idea of writing out-of-the-money puts in stocks we would happily own at lower levels. When the VIX spent most of last week in the 70s and 80s (Chart 2), implied volatilities on single-stock options soared into the triple digits. In the four largest banks, it was possible to earn an annualized return exceeding 100% by writing an April put between 12 and 15% below last sale (Box, page 8). Similar opportunities must be available in other besieged industries. Chart 2Implied Volatility On S&P 500 Index Options Made A New All-Time High Implied Volatility On S&P 500 Index Options Made A New All-Time High Implied Volatility On S&P 500 Index Options Made A New All-Time High These are unquestionably trying times for investors of all stripes, but they are especially hard on those with long-only mandates. Professional investors add much of their value by saving their clients from themselves – by keeping them from succumbing to the temptation to go all-in near market tops and run screaming from risk assets near market bottoms. We all need to make a conscious effort to overcome counterproductive emotions and impulses when markets plunge; reminders that the general pattern is similar, even if the specific circumstances change, help us to keep our eye on the ball. Trying to live up to the seven items we memorized 25 years ago when trying to secure a junior seat on a trading desk does, too.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Box: Extreme Volatility In SIFI Bank Options There are two possible outcomes for an investor who writes a put option. The option will expire without being exercised, in which case the writer will pocket the premium, or the holder will exercise it, compelling the writer to purchase the stock at the strike price. The writer keeps the premium in that case, too, so that his/her basis in the stock is equivalent to the strike price less the premium. The top panel in Table 3 shows the pricing data for April puts on the four largest banks with strike prices 12 to 15% below Thursday’s closing prices. The bottom panel uses that data to calculate the implied annualized return for each put option in the event that it is not exercised, and the option writer’s basis in the stock as a share of its tangible book value in the event that it is. Table 3Insuring SIFI Equities Is Tremendously Expensive Data Independent Data Independent We understand that banks are on the credit front lines, and that defaults will impair their book value. We further understand that their net interest margins, and therefore their revenues, are pressured by declines in longer-term interest rates, though it is our long-held conviction that markets overestimate the largest banks’ exposure to a flattening yield curve. The decision to own them is hardly a slam dunk, but the cost of insuring against further declines is staggering. We recognize that not every investor has discretion to write puts, and it is not something to be done lightly in any event. Writers of puts on SIFI banks are being paid annualized returns of 100% because equity prices are plunging, and investors are especially worried about banks’ exposure to the spreading pain. The compensation is so high, however, that we think the risk-reward proposition merits careful consideration. It may not be a no-brainer to write puts on the SIFI banks right now, but we certainly wouldn’t buy them at these prices. Footnotes 1 Prepared Remarks by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner Introducing the Financial Stability Plan, February 10, 2009. Accessed from https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg18.aspx on March 18, 2020. 2https://www.econclubny.org/legacyarchive/-/blogs/2007-ben-bernanke Accessed on March 18, 2020. The referenced Q&A exchange begins at the 51:49 mark. 3 Graham, Benjamin, The Intelligent Investor, HarperCollins: New York, 2005, p. 97. 4Ibid, p. 15 5Ibid, p. 18

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

Highlights The global pandemic is quickening the decline in globalization. Democracies can manage the virus, but it will be painful. European integration just got a major boost from Germany’s fiscal turn. Stay long the German consumer relative to the exporter. The US and UK are shifting to a “big government” approach for the first time in forty years. Go long TIPS versus equivalent-maturity nominal Treasuries. The US-China cold war is back on, after a fleeting hiatus. Stay short CNY-USD. Stay strategically long gold but go tactically long Brent crude oil relative to gold. Feature The global pandemic blindsided us this year, but it is catalyzing the past decade’s worth of Geopolitical Strategy’s themes. This week’s report is dedicated to our founder and consulting editor, Marko Papic, who spearheaded the following themes, which should be considered in light of this month’s extraordinary developments: The Apex Of Globalization: Borders are closing and the US is quarreling with both Europe and China over vulnerabilities in its medical supply chain. European Integration: Germany is embracing expansive fiscal policy and is softening its line on euro bonds. The End of Anglo-Saxon Laissez-Faire: Senate Republicans in the US are considering “helicopter money” – deficit-financed cash handouts to the public. US-China Conflict: Pandemic, recession, and the US election are combining to make a dangerous geopolitical cocktail. In this report we discuss how the coronavirus crisis is supercharging these themes, making them salient for investors in the near term. New themes will also develop from the crucible of this pandemic and global recession. Households Can’t Spend Helicopter Money Under Quarantine The global financial meltdown continues despite massive monetary and fiscal stimulus by governments across the world (Chart 1). The reason is intuitive: putting cash in people’s hands offers little solace if people are in quarantine or self-isolation and can’t spend it. Stimulus is essential and necessary to defray the costs of a collapsing economy, but doesn’t give any certainty regarding the depth and duration of the recession or the outlook for corporate earnings. Government health policy, rather than fiscal or monetary policy, will provide the critical signals in the near term. Once the market is satisfied that the West is capable of managing the pandemic, then the unprecedented stimulus has the potential to supercharge the rebound. The most important measure is still the number of new daily cases of the novel coronavirus across the world (Chart 2). Once this number peaks and descends, investors will believe the global pandemic is getting under control. It will herald a moment when consumers can emerge from their hovels and begin spending again. Chart 1Monetary/Fiscal Stimulus Not Enough To Calm Markets De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed Chart 2Keep Watching New Daily Cases Of COVID-19 De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed It is critical to see this number fall in Italy, proving that even in cases of government failure, the contagion will eventually calm down (Chart 3). This is essential because it is possible that an Italian-sized crisis could develop in the US or another European country, especially given that unlike Iran, these countries have large elderly populations highly susceptible to the virus. Financial markets are susceptible to more panic until the US and EU show the virus is under control. At the same time the other western democracies still need to prove they are capable of delaying and mitigating the virus now that they are fully mobilized. They should be able to – social distancing works. The province of Lodi, Italy offers an example of successful non-pharmaceutical measures (isolation). It enacted stricter policies earlier than its neighbors and succeeded in turning down the number of daily new cases (Chart 4).1 But it may also be testing less than its wealthier neighbor Bergamo, where the military has recently been deployed to remove corpses. Chart 3Market Needs Italy Contagion To Subside De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed Chart 4Lodi Suggests Social Distancing Works De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed More stringent measures, including lockdowns, are necessary in “hot zones” where the outbreak gets out of control. It is typical of democracies to mobilize slowly, in war or other crises. Italy brought the crisis home for the G7 nations, jolting them into unified action under Mario Draghi’s debt-crisis slogan of “whatever it takes.” Borders are now closed, schools and gatherings are canceled, policy and military forces are deploying, and emergency production of supplies is under way. Populations are responding to their leaders. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator once the danger is clearly demonstrated. Still, in the near term, Spain, Germany, France, the UK, and the United States have painful battles to fight to ensure they do not become the next Italy, with an overloaded medical system leading to a vicious spiral of infections and deaths (Chart 5). Chart 5Painful Battles Ahead For US And EU De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed Until financial markets verify that current measures are working, they are susceptible to panics and selling. In the United States, testing kits were delayed by more than a month because the Center for Disease Control bungled the process and failed to adopt the successful World Health Organization protocol. Some materials for testing kits are still missing. Many states will not begin testing en masse for another two weeks. This means that big spikes in new cases will occur not only now but in subsequent weeks as testing exposes more infections. Over the next month there are numerous such trigger points for markets to panic and give away whatever gains they may have made from previous attempts at a rally. Pure geopolitical risks, outlined below, reinforce this reasoning. Volatility will continue to be the dominant theme. Governments must demonstrate successes in health crisis management before monetary and fiscal measures can have their full effect. There is no amount of stimulus that can compensate for the collapse of consumer spending in advanced consumer societies (Chart 6), so consumers’ health must be put on a better trajectory first. Thus in place of economic and financial data streams, we are watching our Health Policy Checklist (Table 1) to determine if policy measures can provide reassurance to the economy and financial markets. Chart 6No Stimulus Can Offset Collapse Of Consumer No Stimulus Can Offset Collapse Of Consumer No Stimulus Can Offset Collapse Of Consumer Table 1Markets Need To See Health Policy Succeeding De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed Bottom Line: For financial markets to regain confidence durably, governments must show they can manage the outbreak. This can be done but the worst is yet to come and markets will not be able to recover sustainably over the next month or two during that process. There is more upside for the US dollar and more downside for global equities ahead. The Great Fiscal Blowout Global central banks were not entirely out of options when this crisis hit – the Fed has cut rates to zero, increased asset purchases, and extended US dollar swap lines, while central banks already at the zero bound, like the ECB, have still been able to expand asset purchases radically (Table 2). Table 2Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed Chart 7ECB Still The Lender Of Last Resort ECB Still The Lender Of Last Resort ECB Still The Lender Of Last Resort The ECB’s new 750 billion euro Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) has led to a marked improvement in peripheral bond spreads which were blowing out, guaranteeing that the lender of last resort function remains in place even in the face of a collapse of the Italian economy that will require a massive fiscal response in the future (Chart 7). Nevertheless with rates so low, and government bond yields and yield curves heavily suppressed, investors do not have faith in monetary policy to make a drastic change to the macro backdrop for developed market economies. Fiscal policy was the missing piece. It has remained restrained due to government concerns about excessive public debt. Now the “fiscal turn” in policy has arrived with the pandemic and massive stimulus responses (Table 3). Table 3Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic De-Globalization Confirmed De-Globalization Confirmed The Anglo-Saxon world had already rejected budgetary “austerity” in 2016 with Brexit and Trump. Few Republicans dare oppose spending measures to combat a pandemic and deep recession after having voted to slash corporate taxes at the height of the business cycle in 2017.2 The Trump administration is currently vying with the Democratic leadership to see who can propose a bigger third and fourth phase to the current spending plans – $750 billion versus $1.2 trillion? Both presidential candidates are proposing $1 trillion-plus infrastructure plans that are not yet being put to Congress to consider. The Trump administration agrees with its chief Republican enemy, Mitt Romney, as well as former Obama administration adviser Jason Furman, in proposing direct cash handouts to households (“helicopter money”). The size of the US stimulus is at 7% of GDP and rising, larger than in 2008- 10. In the UK, the Conservative Party has changed fiscal course since the EU referendum. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government had proposed an “infrastructure revolution” and the most expansive British budget in decades – and that was before the virus outbreak. Robert Chote, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, captured the zeitgeist by saying, “Now is not a time to be squeamish about public sector debt. We ran during the Second World War budget deficits in excess of 20% of GDP five years on the trot and that was the right thing to do.”3 Now Germany and the EU are joining the ranks of the fiscally accommodative – and in a way that will have lasting effects beyond the virus crisis. Chart 8Coalition Loosened Belt Amid Succession Crisis Coalition Loosened Belt Amid Succession Crisis Coalition Loosened Belt Amid Succession Crisis On March 13 Germany pulled out a fiscal “bazooka” of government support. Finance Minister Olaf Scholz announced that the state bank, KfW, will be able to lend 550bn euros to any business, great or small, suffering amid the pandemic. KfW’s lending capacity was increased from 12% to 15% of GDP. But Scholz, of the SPD, and Economy Minister Peter Altmaier, of the CDU, both insist that there is “no upward limit.” This shift in German policy was the next logical step in a policy evolution that began with the European sovereign debt crisis and took several strides over the past year. The German public, battered by the Syrian refugee crisis, China’s slowdown, and the trade war, voted against the traditional ruling parties, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Smaller parties have been stealing their votes, namely the Greens but also (less so) the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (Chart 8). This competition has thrown the traditional parties into crisis, as it is entirely unclear how they will fare in the federal election in 2021 when long-ruling Chancellor Angela Merkel passes the baton to her as yet unknown successor. To counteract this trend, the ruling coalition began loosening its belt last year with a small stimulus package. But a true game changer always required a crisis or impetus – and the coronavirus has provided that. Germany’s shift is ultimately rooted in geopolitical constraints: Germany is a net beneficiary of the European single market and stands to suffer both economically and strategically if it breaks apart. Integration requires not only the ECB as lender of last resort but also, ultimately, fiscal transfers to keep weaker, less productive peripheral economies from abandoning the euro and devaluing their national currencies. When Germany loosens its belt, it gives license to the rest of Europe to do the same: The European Commission was obviously going to be extremely permissive toward deficits, but it has now made this explicit. Spain announced a massive 20% of GDP stimulus package, half of which is new spending, and is now rolling back the austere structural reforms of 2012. Italy is devastated by the health crisis and is rolling out new spending measures. The right-wing, big spending populist Matteo Salvini is waiting in the wings, having clashed with Brussels over deficits repeatedly in 2018-19 only to see Brussels now coming around to the need for more fiscal action. In addition to spending more, Germany is also sounding more supportive toward the idea of issuing emergency “pandemic bonds” and “euro bonds,” opening the door for a new source of EMU-wide financing. True, the crisis will bring out the self-interest of the various EU member states. For example, Germany initially imposed a cap on medical exports so that critical items would be reserved for Germans, while Italy would be deprived of badly needed supplies. But European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promptly put a stop to this, declaring, “We are all Italians now.” Fiscal policy is now a tailwind instead of a headwind. Von der Leyen is representative of the German ruling elite, but her position is in line with the median German voter, who approves of the European project and an ever closer union. Chart 9DM Budget Deficits Set To Widen DM Budget Deficits Set To Widen DM Budget Deficits Set To Widen Separately, it should be pointed that Japan is also going to loosen fiscal policy further. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was supposed to have already done this according to his reflationary economic policy. His decision to hike the consumer tax in 2014-15 and 2019, despite global manufacturing recessions, ran against the aim of whipping the country’s deflationary mindset. While Abe’s term will end in 2021, Abenomics will continue and evolve by a different name. His successor is much more likely now to follow through with the “second arrow” of Abenomics, government spending. Across the developed markets budget deficits are set to widen and public debt to rise, enabled by low interest rates, surging output gaps, and radical policy shifts that were long in coming (Chart 9). Bottom Line: Ultra-dovish fiscal policy is now complementing ultra-dovish monetary policy throughout the West. This was clear in the US and UK, but now Europe has joined in. Germany’s “bazooka” is the culmination of a policy evolution that began with the European debt crisis. This is an essential step to ensuring that Germany rebalances its economy and that Europe sticks together during and after the pandemic. Europe still faces enormous challenges, but now fiscal policy is a tailwind instead of a headwind. US-China: The Cold War Is Back On US-China tensions are heating back up and could provide the source of another crisis event that exacerbates the “risk off” mode in global financial markets. The underlying strategic conflict never went away – it is rooted in China’s rising geopolitical power relative to the United States. The “phase one” trade deal agreed last fall was a manifestly short-term, superficial deal meant to staunch the bleeding in China’s manufacturing sector and deliver President Trump a victory to take to the 2020 election. Beijing was never going to deliver the exorbitant promises of imports and was not likely to implement the difficult structural provisions until Trump achieved a second electoral mandate. Trump always had the option of accusing China of insufficient compliance, particularly if he won re-election. Now, however, both governments are faced with a global recession and are seeking scapegoats for the COVID-19 crisis. Xi Jinping doesn’t have an electoral constraint but he does have to maintain control of the party and rebuild popular confidence and legitimacy in the wake of the crisis. China’s private sector has suffered a series of blows since Xi took power. China’s trend growth is slowing, it is sitting on an historic debt pile, and it is now facing the deepest recession in modern memory. The protectionist threat from the United States and other nations is likely to intensify amid a global recession. Former Vice President Joe Biden has clinched the Democratic nomination and does not offer a more attractive option for China than President Trump. On the US side, Trump’s economic-electoral constraint is vanishing. Trump’s chances of reelection have been obliterated unless he manages to recreate himself as a successful “crisis president” and convince Americans not to change horses in mid-stream. Primarily this means he will focus on managing the pandemic. Yet it also gives Trump reason to try to change the subject and adopt an aggressive foreign or trade policy, particularly if the virus panic subsides. The economic downside has been removed but there could be political upside to a confrontation with China. The US public increasingly views China unfavorably and is now particularly concerned about medical supply chain vulnerabilities. A diplomatic crisis is already unfolding. China’s propaganda machine has gone into overdrive to distract its populace from the health crisis and recession. The main thrust of this campaign is to praise China’s success in halting the virus’s spread through draconian measures while criticizing the West’s ineffectual response, symbolized by Italy and the United States. This disinformation campaign escalated when Zhao Lijian, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, tweeted that COVID-19 originated in the United States. The conspiracy theory holds that it brought or deployed the coronavirus in China while a military unit visited for a friendly competition in Wuhan in October. A Hong Kong doctor who wrote an editorial exposing this thesis was forced to retract the article. President Trump responded by deliberately referring to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus.” He defended these comments as a way of emphasizing the origin although China and others have criticized the president for dog-whistle racism. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Yang Jiechi, a top Chinese diplomat, met to address the dispute, but relations have only gotten worse. After the meeting China revoked the licenses of several prominent American journalists.4 The fact that conspiracy theories are being spouted by official and semi-official sources in the US and China reflects the dangerous combination of populism, nationalism, and jingoism flaring up in both countries – and the global recession has hardly begun.5 The phase one trade deal may collapse. Investors must now take seriously the possibility that the phase one trade deal will collapse. While China obviously will not meet its promised purchases for the year due to the recession, neither side has abandoned the deal. The CNY-USD exchange rate is still rising (Chart 10). President Trump presumably wants to maintain the deal as a feather in his cap for the election. This means that any failure would come from the China side, as an attack on Trump, or from Trump deciding he is a lame duck and has nothing to lose. These are substantial risks that would blindside the market and trigger more selling. Chart 10US And China Could Abandon Trade Deal US And China Could Abandon Trade Deal US And China Could Abandon Trade Deal Military and strategic tensions could also flare up in the South and East China Seas, the Korean peninsula, or the Taiwan Strait. While we have argued that Korea is an overstated geopolitical risk while Taiwan is understated, at this point both risks are completely off the radar and therefore vastly understated by financial markets. A “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis” could emerge from American deterrence or from Chinese encroachments on Taiwanese security. What is clear is that the US and China are growing more competitive, not more cooperative, as a result of the global pandemic. This is not a “G2” arrangement of global governance but a clash of nationalisms. Another risk is that President Trump would look elsewhere when he looks abroad: conflict with Iran-backed militias in Iraq is ongoing, and both Iran and Venezuela are on the verge of collapse, which could invite American action. A conflict or revolution in Iran would push up the oil price due to regional instability and would have major market-negative implications for Europe. Bottom Line: The US-China trade conflict had only been suspended momentarily. The economic collapse removes the primary constraint on conflict, and the US election is hanging in the balance, so Trump could try to cement his legacy as the president who confronted China. This is a major downside risk for markets even at current crisis lows. Investment Implications What are the market implications of the themes reviewed in this report? First, the virus will precipitate another leg down in globalization, which was already collapsing (Chart 11). Chart 11Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked The US dollar will remain strong in the near term. It is too soon to go long commodities and emerging market currencies and risk assets, though it is notable that our Emerging Markets Strategy has booked profits on its short emerging market equity trade (Chart 12). Chart 12Too Soon To Go Long EM/Commodities Too Soon To Go Long EM/Commodities Too Soon To Go Long EM/Commodities Second, the Anglo-Saxon shift away from laissez faire leads toward dirigisme, an active state role in the economy. US stocks can outperform global stocks amid the global recession, but the rising odds that Trump will lose the election herald a generational anti-corporate turn in US policy. We are strategically long international stocks, which are far more heavily discounted. The combination of de-globalization and dirigisme is ultimately inflationary so we recommend that investors with a long-term horizon go long TIPS versus equivalent-maturity nominal Treasuries, following our US Bond Strategy. Third, Germany, the EU, and the ECB are taking dramatic steps to reinforce our theme of continued European integration. We are strategically long German consumers versus exporters and believe that recommendation should benefit once the virus outbreak is brought under control. There is more downside for EUR-USD in the near term although we remain long on a strategic (one-to-three year) horizon. Fourth, China will not come out the “winner” from the pandemic. It is suffering the first recession in modern memory and is beset by simultaneous internal and external economic challenges. It is also becoming the focus of negative attention globally due to its lack of integration into global standards. Economic decoupling is back on the table as the US may take advantage of the downturn to take protective actions. The US stimulus package in the works should be watched closely for “buy America” provisions and requirements for companies to move onshore. A Biden victory will not remove American “containment policy” directed toward China. Stay strategically long USD-CNY. The chief geopolitical insight from all of the above is that the market turmoil can be prolonged by geopolitical conflict, especially with Trump likely to be a lame duck president. With nations under extreme stress, and every nation fending for itself, the probability of conflicts is rising. We do however see the potential for collapsing oil prices to force Russia and Saudi Arabia back to the negotiating table, so we are initiating a tactical long Brent crude oil / short gold trade. Moreover we remain skeptical toward companies and assets exposed to the US-China relationship, particularly Chinese tech.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Margherita Stancati, "Lockdown of Recovering Italian Town Shows Effectiveness of Early Action," Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2020. 2 The conservatives Stephen Moore, Art Laffer, and Steve Forbes are virtually isolated in opposing the emergency fiscal measures – and will live in infamy for this, their “Mellon Doctrine” moment. 3 Costas Pitas and Andy Bruce, “UK unveils $420 billion lifeline for firms hit by coronavirus,” Reuters, March 17, 2020. 4 China retaliated against The Wall Street Journal for calling China “the sick man of Asia.” The United States responded by reducing the number of Chinese journalists licensed in the US. (Washington had earlier designated China state press as foreign government actors, which limited their permissible actions.) Beijing then ordered reporters from The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post whose licenses were set to expire in 2020 not to return. 5 Inflicting an epidemic on one’s own people is a very roundabout way to cause a global pandemic and harm the United States – obviously that is not what happened in China. It is also absurd to think that the US has essentially initiated World War III by committing an act of bioterrorism against China.