Sovereign Debt

Highlights Global Duration: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Country Allocation: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. Treasury-Bund Spread: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures. Feature In a Special Report jointly published last week with our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy, we laid out the case for why US Treasury yields have bottomed and should now begin to drift higher.1 We reached that conclusion for two reasons: 1) there will be a major US fiscal stimulus after the upcoming US election, especially so if Joe Biden becomes president and the Democrats take the Senate; and 2) the Fed’s shift to Average Inflation Targeting in late August represented the point of maximum Fed dovishness. The investment conclusions were to reduce duration exposure, while also downgrading our recommended allocation to US government bonds to underweight. We also advised cutting exposure to non-US government bond markets with relatively higher sensitivity to changes in US bond yields, while increasing allocations to countries with a lower “yield beta” to US Treasuries (Table 1). Table 1Updated GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields In this follow-up report, we will further discuss the implications of our changed view on US yields for non-US developed market government bonds. This includes specific adjustments to the recommended country allocations in our model bond portfolio, as well as a new tactical trade to profit from a move higher in US yields that will not to be matched in Europe. Our Recommended Overall Duration Stance: Now Below-Benchmark The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound at very low levels across the developed economies. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of economic sentiment measures and leading economic indicators, bottomed back in March and has soared sharply since then (Chart of the Week). Given the usual lead time between peaks and troughs of the Indicator and global bond yields - around nine months, on average – that suggests yields should bottom out sometime before year-end. Chart of the WeekA Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields A Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields A Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields Chart 2UST Yields About To Break Out? UST Yields About To Break Out? UST Yields About To Break Out? In the US, we now think we are past that point, as we discussed last week. The 10-year US Treasury yield has been drifting higher during the month of October and is now bumping up against its 200-day moving average of 0.83% (Chart 2). This is only the first such attempt at a trend breakout in yields, and such a move is unlikely prior to US Election Day - or, more accurately, “US Election Is Decided Day” which may not be November 3! The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound. Outside the US, however, momentum of bond yields and potential trend breakouts paint a more mixed picture. German and French bond yields remain stable and generally trendless, with Italian and Spanish yields continuing to grind lower. At the same time, yields in the UK, Canada and Australia have started to perk up but remain just below their 200-day moving averages. Bond yields have not responded to the sharp cyclical rebound across the developed world, with large gaps between elevated manufacturing PMIs and stagnant bond yields (Chart 3). Low inflation, ample spare economic capacity and dovish monetary policies are all playing a role, with bond markets not expecting an imminent inflation surge that could drive up yields and fuel expectations of tighter monetary policy. By way of contrast, China - where domestic services sectors have improved at a rapid pace from the COVID-19 recession and where the central bank is not running an overly accommodative monetary policy – has seen a more typical positive correlation between government bond yields and the rising manufacturing PMI over the past several months (Chart 4). This suggests that developed market bond yields can begin to normalize if the domestic services side of those economies emerges more forcefully from the lockdown-induced downturn. Chart 3A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields Chart 4Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? The news on that front is more optimistic in the US compared in Europe. The Markit services PMIs for the euro area and UK have all weakened over the past few months, with headline inflation rates flirting with deflation (Chart 5). Similar data in the US has trended in the opposite direction, with stronger US services activity with rising inflation. Chart 5Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US The pickup in new COVID-19 cases, and the degree of the response by governments to contain it, has been far stronger in Europe and the UK than in the US on a population-adjusted basis (Chart 6). Lockdowns have become more widespread across Europe to contain the second larger wave of the virus. The recent softer services PMI data in the euro area and UK are a reflection of those greater economic restrictions and weaker confidence. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates.  In the US, governments have been far less willing to implement politically unpopular restrictions in an election year, while lockdown-weary consumers have been more willing to go about their lives rather than stay sheltered at home. The result is a healthier tone to the US data compared to other countries, even with the number of new US cases on the rise again. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates. As we discussed in last week’s Special Report, both the Biden and Trump platforms are calling for major fiscal stimulus – between $5-6 trillion over the next decade, including tax changes – although the Biden plan has much more front-loaded direct government spending, only partially offset by tax increases, if fully implemented. This is the “Blue Sweep” scenario, with a Biden victory and Democratic Party control of the US Congress, that is most bearish for US Treasuries, as the outcome would eventually help reduce the expected 2021 US fiscal drag of -7.2% of GDP as estimated by the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor (Chart 7). Even a re-elected Trump, however, would also mean more US fiscal stimulus, although with a mix of tax cuts and spending increases. Chart 6The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder Combined with an improving services sector and rising inflation, this puts the US in a much different economic position than the major economies of Europe. Chart 7Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag There, the IMF is also projecting some fiscal drag in 2021, but now with a much less healthy domestic economy due to the COVID-19 surge and where inflation is already near 0%. Our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. There will likely be another round of fiscal measures to help combat virus-stricken economies in Europe and elsewhere, but the US election is bringing the issue to the forefront more quickly. In other words, the US will get a more bond-bearish fiscal stimulus before Europe does. Bottom Line: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Our Recommended Country Allocation: Downgrade US, Upgrade Lower-Beta Countries Net-net, our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. This also has implications for our recommend country allocation in our model bond portfolio. First, are downgrading our recommended US Treasury allocation to underweight. We are also increasing our desired weighting in countries where government bond yields are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields – especially during periods when the latter are rising. We call this “upside yield beta”. The countries that have the highest such beta to US Treasuries are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, making them downgrade candidates (Chart 8). Similarly, lower upside beta countries like Germany, France, Japan and the UK are upgrade possibilities. Chart 8Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Already, we are seeing the widening of yield spreads between US Treasuries and non-US government markets – with more to come as US Treasuries grind higher over the next 6-12 months. We see the greatest upside for spreads between the US and the low upside yield beta countries – that means wider spreads for US-Germany, US-France, US-Japan and US-UK (Chart 9). Chart 9Expect More Underperformance From USTs Expect More Underperformance From USTs Expect More Underperformance From USTs Chart 10Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Thus, this week are making significant changes to our strategic government bond country allocations (see page 15), as well as the country weightings in our model bond portfolio (see pages 13-14), based on our new view on US bond yields and non-US yield betas. Specifically, we are not only cutting our recommended US weighting to underweight, but we are also downgrading Canada and Australia from overweight to neutral. On the other side, we are upgrading UK Gilts to overweight from neutral, while also upgrading Germany, France and Japan to overweight. Importantly, we are maintaining our overweight stance on Italian and Spanish sovereign debt, as those markets are supported by greater European fiscal policy integration in the world of COVID-19 and, just as importantly, large-scale ECB asset purchases. More generally, the relative “aggressiveness” of central bank quantitative easing (QE) does play a role in our recommended country allocation. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. This means less expected QE buying of Treasuries by the Fed. Conversely, given how aggressive the Reserve Bank of Australia and Bank of Canada have been with expanding their balance sheet via QE (Chart 10), this makes us reluctant to shift to the underweight stance on those countries implied by their high beta to rising US Treasury yields. Therefore, we are only downgrading those two countries to neutral. Bottom Line: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. A New Tactical Trade: A UST-Bund Spread Widener Using Futures This week, we are also introducing a new recommended trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 16 to take advantage of our view on US bond yields: a 10-year US-Germany spread widening trade using government bond futures. Chart 11A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread This trade makes sense for several reasons: Germany has one of the lowest yield betas to US Treasuries during periods when the latter is rising, as shown earlier. Our US Treasury-German Bund fundamental fair value spread model – which uses relative policy interest rates, unemployment and inflation between the US and the euro area as inputs - suggests that the spread is now far too tight after the massive rally in US Treasuries in 2020 (Chart 11). The main reason why the spread looks so “expensive” is that the underlying fair value has risen with US inflation rising and euro area inflation falling (Chart 12, bottom panel). The UST-Bund yield differential is not stretched from a technical perspective, when looking at deviations of the spread from its 200-day moving average or the 26-week change in the spread; both measures suggest room for additional spread widening before reaching historical extremes (Chart 13). Also, duration positioning by US fixed income investors is only around neutral, according to the JP Morgan duration survey, suggesting scope to push yields higher if bond investors become more defensive. Chart 12Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 13Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread As a reference, we are initiating this trade with the cash bond 10-year US-Germany spread at +138bps, with a target range of +170-190bps over the 0-6 month horizon we maintain for our Tactical Overlay positions. Bottom Line: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep", dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 80% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. Feature With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart 1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart 1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table 1).1 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Table 1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.2 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart 2). Chart 2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. The US output gap would close more rapidly under a President Biden, likely triggering a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance.  At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart 3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart 3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).3 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 45%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 30%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 20%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 5%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 80%, versus a 20% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 80%, 35 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market Chart 4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart 4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart 4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. A complete re-convergence to long-run fed funds rate estimates would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart 5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart 5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart 5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart 6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart 5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart 6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart 6, bottom panel).4 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart 7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart 8).5 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart 7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart 8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart 8, bottom panel).6 Two More Curve Trades Chart 9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart 9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. The Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. Chart 10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart 10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart 11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart 11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart 12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart 12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 2 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Stocks, particularly tech stocks, are technically overbought and highly vulnerable to a further correction. Nevertheless, investors should continue to overweight global equities relative to bonds on a 12-month horizon, while rotating equity allocations into cheaper sectors and regions. What should policymakers do if they wish to maximize growth and restore full employment? In the feature section of this report, we argue that the optimal course of action for most countries is to loosen fiscal policy until labor slack has been eliminated and the central bank’s inflation target has been met. Once this has been achieved, governments should trim the budget deficit to keep inflation from accelerating too much. What will policymakers actually do? While today’s budget deficits are smaller than what most economies need, they will ultimately prove to be too big once private sector demand recovers. The upshot is that inflation will increase by the middle of the decade, first in the US and then everywhere else. The secular bull market in equities will end only when central banks are forced to scramble to contain inflation. Fortunately, that day of reckoning is at least a few years away. Feature Apparently, Stocks Don’t Always Go Up After a relentless rally, stocks buckled under the pressure on Thursday. The MSCI All-Country World index lost 3%, the S&P 500 shed 3.5%, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite plunged 5%. Two weeks ago, in a report titled “The Return Of Nasdog,” we argued that the leadership role was set to pivot away from tech and health care, as pandemic angst subsided and investors began to price in a recovery in the sectors of the stock market that had been crushed by lockdown measures. Chart 1A Weaker Dollar Is Generally Associated With Non-US Equity Outperformance, But Not Since The Covid Crash A Weaker Dollar Is Generally Associated With Non-US Equity Outperformance, But Not Since The Covid Crash A Weaker Dollar Is Generally Associated With Non-US Equity Outperformance, But Not Since The Covid Crash Historically, non-US equities have outperformed their US peers when the dollar has weakened (Chart 1). This relationship broke down this year because of the outsized weight that tech and health care command in US indices. If the relative performance of tech and health care stocks peaks over the coming weeks, this should translate into a clear outperformance for non-US stock markets. Value stocks should also start outperforming growth stocks. Stock market leadership changes often occur within the context of broad-based equity corrections. Our near-term view on stocks, as illustrated in the view matrix at the end of this report, is more cautious than our 12-month view. Thus, we would not be surprised if the major indices sell off over the coming weeks, with tech stocks leading the way down. The same sort of technical factors that amplified the move up in stocks over the past few weeks could exacerbate the move down. Most notably, so-called delta hedge option strategies, in which an investor sells calls and hedges the risk by purchasing the underlying stock, can create a self-reinforcing feedback loop where rising call prices force investors to buy more shares, leading to even higher call prices. Once the stock market starts falling, the process goes into reverse. Nevertheless, we do not expect tech stocks to suffer the sort of crash they experienced in 2000. Tech valuations are not as stretched as they were back then, earnings growth is stronger, and balance sheets are much healthier. Moreover, unlike in 2000, when the Fed lifted rates to as high as 6.5% in May, monetary policy is at no risk of turning hawkish. All this suggests that tech stocks are more likely to go sideways than down over a 12-month horizon (albeit in a fairly volatile manner). Investors should continue to overweight global equities relative to bonds on a 12-month horizon, while tilting equity allocations towards cheaper sectors and regions. Feature: Should Versus Will Investors want to know what the future will bring. As such, our primary interest at BCA Research is in predicting what policymakers will do rather than what they should do. Sometimes, however, it is useful to ask the “should” question since the answer may shape one’s view on the “will” question. This is especially the case when a particular set of goals is aligned with both the incentives and constraints that policymakers face. With that in mind, let us ask what the optimal mix of monetary and fiscal policy should be, assuming that policymakers have the goal of maximizing growth and moving the economy towards full employment. As we argue below, this is a relevant question to ask not because we necessarily share this goal – our personal value judgments are besides the point here – but because most policymakers think this is the correct goal. Propping Up Demand Chart 2Labor Markets In Developed Economies Have Rarely Overheated Over The Past Few Decades Labor Markets In Developed Economies Have Rarely Overheated Over The Past Few Decades Labor Markets In Developed Economies Have Rarely Overheated Over The Past Few Decades Maintaining full employment requires that spending match the economy’s productive capacity. In theory, this should not be a difficult objective to achieve. After all, people like to spend. Increasing demand should be easy. The hard part should be raising supply. In practice, it has not worked out that way. Even before the pandemic, unemployment rates rarely fell below their full employment level across the G7 economies (Chart 2). High Unemployment: Cyclical Or Structural? Some will argue that surplus unemployment is necessary to shift workers from sectors of the economy where they are not needed to sectors where they are. The failure to facilitate such resource reallocation could, it is alleged, stymie long-term growth. This is largely a spurious claim. As Chart 3 shows, there is always a huge amount of churn in the labor market. In 2019, a year in which total employment rose by 2.1 million, a total of 70 million people were hired in the US compared to 64 million who quit or lost their jobs. In fact, labor market churn tends to decrease during recessions as workers become reluctant to quit their jobs. Chart 3Labor Market Turnover Tends To Increase During Expansions Labor Market Turnover Tends To Increase During Expansions Labor Market Turnover Tends To Increase During Expansions Chart 4Residential Construction Accounted For Less Than 20% Of The Job Losses During The Great Recession The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done Far from reflecting structural factors, the vast majority of the rise in joblessness during economic downturns is gratuitous in nature. For example, more than 80% of the jobs lost during the Great Recession were outside the residential real estate sector (Chart 4). Moreover, employment growth is highly correlated with investment spending (Chart 5). The easiest way to induce firms to boost capex – and, in the process, augment the economy’s productive capacity – is to adopt policies that raise overall employment. A stronger labor market will generate more demand for goods and services. It will also make labor more expensive in relation to capital, thereby incentivizing labor-saving capital investment. Chart 5Employment Growth And Investment Spending Go Hand-In-Hand Employment Growth And Investment Spending Go Hand-In-Hand Employment Growth And Investment Spending Go Hand-In-Hand Today, unemployment is elevated once again. As was the case during prior recessions, some workers will need to transition from sectors of the economy that will be slow to recover (retail, travel, and hospitality, for example) to sectors where jobs will be more plentiful. The risk is that there will not be enough job vacancies in the latter sectors to compensate for job losses in the former. The fact that permanent job losses have been creeping higher in the US over the past few months, even as temporary layoffs have come down, is evidence that such an outcome is a clear and present danger (Chart 6). Chart 6Many Are Returning To Work, But The Number Of Permanent Layoffs Is Slowly Increasing As Well Many Are Returning To Work, But The Number Of Permanent Layoffs Is Slowly Increasing As Well Many Are Returning To Work, But The Number Of Permanent Layoffs Is Slowly Increasing As Well Central Banks Can’t Do It All One does not need to refill a leaky bucket through the same hole the water escaped. As long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, workers who lose their jobs in declining sectors will eventually find new jobs in other sectors. So why has the bucket seemed chronically short of water in recent years? The answer is that monetary policy has been tasked to do more than it is realistically capable of achieving. Monetary policy operates with “long and variable lags.” When unemployment rises, the best that central banks can do is cut interest rates and hope that the more interest-rate sensitive parts of the economy eventually perk up. If the interest-rate sensitive sectors of the economy are tapped out, just as housing was following the financial crisis, or policy rates are near their lower bound, as they are now, monetary policy will be even less potent than usual. The Role Of Fiscal Policy This is where fiscal policy ought to fill the void. Even if monetary policy is exhausted, governments can cut taxes, raise transfers to households and businesses, or increase direct spending on goods and services. The extent to which fiscal policy is loosened should not be preordained. Rather, it should simply reflect the state of the economy. There is no limit to how much money governments can transfer to the public. In fact, one can easily imagine a system where governments cut taxes and increase transfer payments whenever unemployment moves up. Such a powerful system of automatic stabilizers would go a long way towards keeping the economy on an even keel. Why have governments been reluctant to embrace such a system? One key reason is that such a system would produce open-ended budget deficits. That would not be much of a problem if the red ink lasted just a few years, but what if the need for large budget deficits did not go away? The Japanese Example Consider the case of Japan. Starting in the early 1990s, Japan’s private sector became a chronic net saver, as demand for credit evaporated amid savage deleveraging (Chart 7). In order to keep the economy from falling into a full-blown depression, the government started to run continual budget deficits. Effectively, the government had to soak up persistent private savings with its own dissavings. As a result, the debt-to-GDP ratio ballooned from 64% in 1991 to 237% by 2019 and is set to rise further this year. Many people predicted a debt crisis would engulf Japan. Takeshi Fujimaki, a former banker turned politician, has been forecasting a debt crisis for more than two decades.In 2010, financial pundit John Mauldin described Japan as a “bug in search of a windshield.” He reckoned that the country would “implode within the next two-to-three years,” with the yen falling to 300 against the dollar. Kyle Bass has made similarly dire predictions.1 How was Japan able to escape what seemed like certain doom? The answer is that the same factor that necessitated persistent budget deficits, namely excess private-sector savings, also allowed interest rates to fall. Despite a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, government interest payments have been trending lower over time (Chart 8). Today, the government actually earns more interest than it pays because two-thirds of all Japanese debt bears negative yields. Chart 7The Japanese Government Runs Persistent Budget Deficits Amid The Private Sector's Desire To Save The Japanese Government Runs Persistent Budget Deficits Amid The Private Sector's Desire To Save The Japanese Government Runs Persistent Budget Deficits Amid The Private Sector's Desire To Save Chart 8Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments Japan: Ballooning Debt And Declining Interest Payments If anything, Japan erred in not easing fiscal policy by enough. Had Japan run even larger budget deficits, deflationary pressures would have been less acute, and as a result, real interest rates would have fallen even more than they actually did (Chart 9). Chart 9Japanese Real Yields Are Higher Than In Many Other Major Economies Japanese Real Yields Are Higher Than In Many Other Major Economies Japanese Real Yields Are Higher Than In Many Other Major Economies A Fiscal Free Lunch? The standard equation for public debt sustainability says that as long as the government’s borrowing rate is below the growth rate of the economy, the debt-to-GDP ratio will converge to a stable level no matter how large the fiscal deficit happens to be (See Box 1 for details). The caveat is that this “stable” debt-to-GDP ratio could turn out to be quite high. For example, if the government wants to run a primary budget deficit of 10% of GDP indefinitely, and GDP growth exceeds the real interest rate by two percentage points, the debt-to-GDP ratio will eventually converge to 500%. If interest rates were guaranteed to stay at zero forever, even a debt-to-GDP ratio of 500% would be no cause for alarm. But, of course, there is no such guarantee. For a country such as Italy, letting debt levels soar into the stratosphere would be highly risky. Countries that do not possess a central bank capable of acting as a lender of last resort could find themselves in a vicious spiral where rising bond yields raise the probability of default, leading to even higher bond yields (Chart 10). Chart 10Multiple Equilibria In The Debt Market Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done For countries that do issue debt in their own currencies, default risk is less of a problem since their central banks can set short-term rates at any level they want and, if necessary, target long-term rates with yield curve control strategies. Nevertheless, even these countries would face difficult choices if the excess savings that permitted interest rates to stay low disappeared. A decline in national savings would raise the neutral rate of interest (the rate which equalizes aggregate demand with aggregate supply). If policy rates remained unchanged, the neutral rate of interest would end up being higher than policy rates, which would eventually cause the economy to overheat. At that point, policymakers would have two options: First, they could simply let the economy overheat such that inflation rises. If inflation is very low to begin with, modestly higher inflation would be welcome, as it would make the zero lower bound constraint less of a problem.2 Higher inflation would also speed up the pace of nominal income growth, leading to a lower debt-to-GDP ratio. That said, if inflation were to rise too much, it could have destabilizing effects on the economy. Second, they could tighten fiscal policy. A smaller budget deficit would add to national savings, while giving the government more resources to pay back debt. Tighter fiscal policy would also subtract from aggregate demand, thus reducing the neutral rate of interest. This would diminish the need for central banks to raise rates in the first place. Putting it all together, the optimal course of action, at least for countries that can issue debt in their own currencies, is to loosen fiscal policy until full employment has been restored and the central bank’s inflation target has been met. Once this has been achieved, the government should trim the budget deficit to keep inflation from getting out of hand. What Will Be Done Okay, so much for the idealized strategy. What will actually happen? As was the case following the Great Recession, there is a risk that some countries will tighten fiscal policy prematurely, causing the economic recovery from the pandemic to be slower than it would otherwise be. In the US, this is already happening. Federal emergency unemployment benefits under the CARES Act expired at the end of July; funding for the small business paycheck protection program has run out; and state and local governments are facing a severe cash crunch. BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy team, led by Matt Gertken, expects the logjam in Washington to be resolved in September. Most voters, including the majority of Republicans, want emergency unemployment benefits to be restored (Table 1). Additional fiscal stimulus would cushion the economy in the lead up to the November election, which would arguably benefit President Trump and the Republican party. Hence, there is a good chance that Congressional Republicans will accede to a fairly generous fiscal package. Table 1The Majority Continues To Support Expanded Unemployment Insurance The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done Globally, the prevalence of negative real rates (and in some cases, negative nominal rates) should incentivize governments to run larger budget deficits than they have in the past. Increasing political populism will amplify this trend. Thus, despite some near-term hiccups, fiscal policy will remain highly stimulative. The Inflation End Game Chart 11The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Is Now Falling What will happen when unemployment rates return to their pre-pandemic level in three or four years? Will governments tighten fiscal policy to prevent overheating or will they let inflation run loose? Our guess is that they will let inflation rise. National savings can shrink either because the private sector is spending more or because the private sector is earning less. Looking out beyond the next few years, the latter is more likely than the former. This is because the ratio of workers-to-consumers globally will decline sharply over the coming decade as more baby boomers exit the labor force (Chart 11). Spending will decelerate, but output and income will decelerate even more by virtue of this demographic reality. It is difficult to boost tax revenue in an environment of slowing real income growth. If output falls in relation to spending, inflation will rise. At least initially, central banks will welcome the burst of inflation. They have been trying to push up inflation for years. Past inflation undershoots will be used to justify future inflation overshoots, a doctrine the Fed officially blessed at the virtual Jackson Hole symposium last week. Other central banks will be loath to raise rates if the Fed stands pat for fear that their own currencies will surge against the US dollar. The end result is that inflation will increase, first in the US and then everywhere else. A quick glance at long-term inflation expectations suggests that markets do not discount this risk at all (Chart 12). What does all this mean for investors? For the next few years, the combination of ample fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy will foster a supportive backdrop for global equities. Despite the rally in stocks since March, the global equity risk premium remains quite elevated, especially outside the US (Chart 13). Investors should remain overweight global stocks versus bonds on a 12-month horizon. Chart 12Investors Believe Inflation Will Stay Muted In The Long Term Investors Believe Inflation Will Stay Muted In The Long Term Investors Believe Inflation Will Stay Muted In The Long Term Chart 13Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Non-US Stocks Look Cheaper Than Their US Peers In Both Absolute Terms And In Relation To Bond Yields Looking further out, the secular bull market in equities will end only when central banks are forced to scramble to contain inflation. Fortunately, that day of reckoning is at least a few years away.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Ben McLannahan, “Japanese Bonds Defy the Debt Doomsters,” Financial Times, dated August 8, 2012; Mariko Ishikawa, Kenneth Kohn and Yumi Ikeda, “Soros Adviser Turned Lawmaker Sees Crisis by 2020,” Bloomberg News, dated September 27, 2013; and Dan McCrum, “Kyle Bass bets on full-blown Japan crisis,” Financial Times, May 21, 2013. 2 For example, if inflation is 3%, a central bank could produce a real rate of -3% by bringing policy rates down to zero. In contrast, if inflation is only 1%, the lowest that real rates could fall is -1%, which may not be stimulative enough for the economy.   Box 1The Arithmetic Of Debt Sustainability The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done Current MacroQuant Model Scores The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done The Outlook For Monetary And Fiscal Policy: What Should Be Done Vs. What Will Be Done

Highlights President Trump is making a comeback in our quantitative election model. An upgrade from our 35% odds of a Trump win is on the horizon, pending a fiscal relief bill.  The Fed’s pursuit of “maximum employment,” the necessities of the pandemic response, fiscal largesse, a US shift toward protectionism, and the strategic need to counter China will pervade either candidate’s presidency. A Democratic “clean sweep” would add insult to injury for value stocks, but these stocks don’t have much more downside relative to growth stocks. Trump’s tariffs, or Biden’s taxes, will hit the outperformance of Big Tech, as will the recovery of inflation expectations. Feature More than at any time in recent US history, voters believe that the 2020 election is definitive in charting two distinct courses for the country (Chart 1). No doubt 2020 is an epic election with far-reaching implications. However, from an investment point of view, a Trump and a Biden administration have more in common than consensus holds. Chart 1An Epic Choice About The US’s Future Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes The US political parties have finalized their policy platforms, giving investors greater clarity about what policies the parties will try to implement over the next four years.1 While the presidential pick is critical for American foreign and trade policy, the Senate is just as important as the president for US equity sectors. The only dramatic changes would come if the Democrats achieved a clean sweep of government – yet this result is likely as things stand today (Chart 2). Investors should prepare. It would prolong the suffering of value stocks relative to growth stocks by hitting the US health care and energy sectors hard. Chart 2“Blue Wave” Still The Likeliest Scenario Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes The State Of Play A “Blue Wave” is still the likeliest outcome – and that’s where the stark policy differences emerge. The race is tightening. Our quantitative election model looks at state leading indicators, margins of victory in 2016, the range of the president’s approval rating, and a “time for change” variable that gives the incumbent party an advantage if it has not been in the White House for eight years. The model now shows Florida as a toss-up state with a 50% chance of flipping back into the Republican fold (Chart 3). Chart 3Florida Now 50/50 In Our Election Quant Model – 45% Chance Of Trump Win Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes As long as the economy continues recovering between now and November 3, Florida should flip and Trump should go from 230 Electoral College votes to 259. One other state – plus one of the stray electoral votes from either Nebraska or Maine, which Trump is like to get – would deliver him the Oval Office again. The model says that Trump has a 45% chance of victory, up from 42% last month. Subjectively, we are more pessimistic than the model. Pandemic, recession, and social unrest have taken a toll on voters and unemployment is nearly three times as high as when Trump’s approval rating peaked in March. Consumer confidence is weak, albeit making an effort to trough. Voters take their cue from the jobs market more than the stock market, although the stock rally is certainly helpful for the incumbent. We await the completion of a new fiscal relief bill in Congress before upgrading Trump to closer to our model’s odds and the market consensus of 45%. Another Social Lockdown? COVID-19 subsiding in the US a boon for Trump in final two months of campaign. The first concern for the next president is COVID-19. On the surface Trump and Biden are diametrically opposed. President Trump is obviously disinclined to impose a new round of lockdowns and the Republican platform calls for normalizing the economy in 2021. By contrast, the Democrats claim they will contain the virus even at a high economic cost. Biden says he will be willing to shut down the entire US economy again if scientists deem it necessary.2 There is apparently political will for new draconian lockdowns – but it is not likely to be sustained after the election unless the next wave of the virus is overwhelming (Chart 4). Biden will need to be cognizant of the economy if he is to succeed. Chart 4Biden Has Some Support For Another Lockdown Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes However, it is doubtful that Trump would refuse to lock down the economy in his second term if his advisers told him it was necessary. After all, it is Trump, not Biden, who implemented the lockdowns this year. Arguably he reopened the economy too soon with the election in mind. But if that is true, then it isn’t an issue for his second term, since he can’t run for president a third time. This is a theme we often come back to: reelection removes a critical impediment to Trump’s policies in a second term as opposed to his first. Bottom Line: The coronavirus outbreak and the country’s top experts will decide if new lockdowns are warranted, regardless of president, but the bar for a complete shutdown is high. COVID-19 is subsiding in both the US and in countries like Sweden that never imposed draconian lockdowns (Chart 5). Still, given that the equity market has recovered to pre-COVID highs, investors would be wise to hedge against a bad outcome this winter. Chart 5Pandemic Subsiding In US And ‘Laissez-Faire’ Sweden Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Maximum Employment The monetary policy backdrop will be ultra-dovish regardless of the presidency. The Fed is now pursuing average inflation targeting and “maximum employment,” according to Fed Chairman Jay Powell, speaking virtually on August 27 at the Kansas City Fed’s annual Jackson Hole summit. This means that if Trump wins, he will not have to fight running battles with Powell over rate hikes. The monetary backdrop for either president will be more reminiscent of that faced by President Obama from 2009-12 – extremely accommodative. It is possible that Trump’s “growth at all costs” attitude could lead to speculative bubbles that the Fed would need to prick. Already the NASDAQ 100 is off the charts. Elements of froth reminiscent of the dotcom bubble era are mushrooming (Chart 6). Nobody has any idea yet how the Fed will square its maximum employment mission with the need to prevent financial instability, but it will err on the side of low rates. Chart 6Frothy NDX Frothy NDX Frothy NDX Chart 7The Mother Of All V-Shapes The Mother Of All V-Shapes The Mother Of All V-Shapes Biden will be more likely to tamp down financial excesses through executive orders – or to deter excesses through taxes if he controls the Senate. But there is no reason the executive branch would be more vigilant than the Fed itself. Higher inflation will push real rates down and weaken the dollar almost regardless of who wins the presidency. Trump’s trade wars – and any major conflict with China – would tend to prop up the greenback relative to Biden’s less hawkish, more multilateral, approach. But either way the combination of debt monetization, twin deficits, and global economic recovery spells downside for the dollar. This in turn spells upside for the S&P500 and inflation-friendly (or deflation-unfriendly) equity sectors in the longer run (Chart 7). Fiscal Largesse The next president will struggle with a massive fiscal hangover resembling late 1940s. The Fed’s new strategy ensures that fiscal policy will prove the driving factor in the US macro outlook. Regardless of who wins the election, the budget deficit will fall from its extreme heights amid the COVID-19 crisis over the next four years (Chart 8). If government spending falls faster than private activity recovers, overall demand will shrink and the economy will be foisted back into recession. Chart 8Budget Deficit Will Decrease As Economy Normalizes Budget Deficit Will Decrease As Economy Normalizes Budget Deficit Will Decrease As Economy Normalizes The deep 1948-49 recession occurred because of the government’s climbing down from wartime levels of spending (Chart 9). Premature fiscal tightening would jeopardize the 2021 recovery. Yet neither candidate is a fiscal hawk. Trump is a big spender; Biden is a Democrat. The House Democrats will control the purse strings. Republican senators, the only hawkish actors left, are not all that hawkish in practice. They agreed with Trump and the Democrats in passing bipartisan spending blowouts from 2017-20. They will likely conclude another such deal just before the election. Chart 9Sharp Deficit Correction Would Jeopardize Recovery Sharp Deficit Correction Would Jeopardize Recovery Sharp Deficit Correction Would Jeopardize Recovery So Trump would maintain high levels of spending without raising taxes; Biden would spend even more, albeit with higher taxes. Table 1Biden Would Raise $4 Trillion In Revenue Over Ten Years Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes On paper, Biden would add a net ~$2 trillion to the US budget deficit over ten years, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. But these are loose costings. Nobody knows anything until actual legislation is produced. The risk to spending levels lies to the upside until the employment-to-population ratio improves (Chart 10). Trump’s net effect on the deficit is even harder to estimate because the Republican Party platform is so vague. What we know is that Trump couldn’t care less about deficits. Back of the envelope, if Congress permanently cut the employee side of the payroll tax for workers who earn less than $8,000 per month, as Trump has suggested, the deficit would increase by roughly $4.8 trillion over ten years.3 Table 2Biden Would Spend $6 Trillion In Programs Over Ten Years Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes   Chart 10Massive Labor Slack Will Encourage Government Spending Massive Labor Slack Will Encourage Government Spending Massive Labor Slack Will Encourage Government Spending House Democrats will hardly agree to any major new tax cuts – and certainly not gigantic ones that would “raid Social Security.” This accusation will be popular and Trump will want to avoid it during the campaign as well – his 2020 platform does not explicitly mention the payroll tax. Many of Trump’s other proposals would focus on extending the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. For example, it is possible that Trump could extend the full expensing of companies’ depreciation costs for capital purchases, set to expire in 2022 and 2026, to the tune of $419 billion over ten years.4 Thus the overall contribution of government spending to GDP growth will be higher than in the recent past. This trend was established prior to COVID (Chart 11). The rise of populism supports this prediction, as Trump has always insisted he will never cut mandatory (entitlement) spending – a major change to Republican orthodoxy now enshrined in its policy platform. Chart 11Government Role To Increase In America Government Role To Increase In America Government Role To Increase In America Chart 12No Cuts To Defense Likely Either No Cuts To Defense Likely Either No Cuts To Defense Likely Either Meanwhile Biden is not only rejecting spending cuts but also coopting the profligate spending agenda of the left wing of his party. Practically speaking, social spending cannot be cut by Trump – and yet Biden cannot cut defense spending much either, since competition with Russia and China is growing (Chart 12). The common thread in both party platforms is fiscal largesse at a time of monetary dovishness, i.e. reflation. Other Common Denominators Market is overrating Biden’s China friendliness. Both Trump and Biden promise to build infrastructure, energize domestic manufacturing, and lower pharmaceutical prices. The two candidates are competing vociferously over who will bring more American manufacturing jobs home. President Trump won the Republican nomination in 2016 partly because he stole the Democrats’ thunder on “fair trade” over “free trade.” Biden’s agenda is effusive on these Trump (and Bernie Sanders) themes – his party sees an existential risk in the Rust Belt if it cannot steal that thunder back. The manufacturing agenda centers on China-bashing. China runs the largest trade surplus with the US, it has a negative image in the public eye, and it has alarmed the military-industrial complex by rising to the status of a peer strategic competitor over the technologies of tomorrow. Where Trump once spoke of a “border adjustment tax,” or a Reciprocal Trade Act, Biden speaks openly of a carbon border tax: “the Biden Administration will impose carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations.”5 China’s coal-guzzling economy would obviously be the prime target. It is true that Biden will seek to engage China and reset the relationship. He will probably maintain Trump’s tariff levels or even slap a token new tariff, but he will then settle down for a two-track policy of dialogue with China and coalition-building with the democracies. The result may be a reprieve from strategic tensions for a year or so. Investors are exaggerating Biden’s positive impact on China relations, judging by the correlation of China-exposed US equities with the Democrats’ odds of winning. The truth is that Biden will maintain the Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia,” which was about countering China. The secular power struggle will persist and China-exposed stocks, especially tech, will be the victims (Chart 13). Chart 13Market Over-Optimistic About Biden Vis-à-Vis China Market Over-Optimistic About Biden Vis-à-Vis China Market Over-Optimistic About Biden Vis-à-Vis China Senate election will likely tip with White House – but checks and balances are best for equities. Control of the Senate will determine whether the big differences between the two candidates materialize. Biden can’t raise taxes without the Senate; Trump can’t wage trade wars of choice as Congress is supreme over commerce and could take his magic tariff wand away from him. Trump can use executive orders to pare back immigration, but he cannot force the House Democrats to approve a southern border wall. In fact, he dropped “the Wall” from his agenda this time around. (It didn’t help that former Trump adviser Steve Bannon has been arrested for allegedly scamming people out of their money to pay for a wall.) Biden will be far looser on immigration than Trump and the reviving economy will attract foreign workers. But the Obama administration showed that during times of high unemployment, even Democrats have a limit to the influx they will allow (Chart 14). Meanwhile Biden can use executive orders to impose aspects of his version of the Green New Deal, but he cannot pass carbon pricing laws or other sweeping climate policy if Republican Senators are there to stop him. For this reason, a divided government is likely to produce three cheers from the markets. The single most market-positive scenario is Biden plus a Republican Senate, which suggests a moderation of the trade war and yet no new taxes. Second best would be Trump with a Democratic Congress that would clip his wings on tariffs, but enable him to veto any anti-market laws. The stock market’s performance to date is more reminiscent of a “gridlock” election outcome, in which the two parties split the executive and legislative branches of government in some way, as opposed to a unified single-party government (Chart 15). Chart 14Immigration Faces Limits Even Under Democrats Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Chart 15Stock Market Expects Gridlock? Stock Market Expects Gridlock? Stock Market Expects Gridlock? Investors should not be complacent, however, because the political polling so far suggests that the Senate race is on a knife’s edge. The balance of power will tilt whichever way the heavily nationalized, heavily polarized White House race tilts (Chart 16). A “blue sweep” is still a fairly high probability. Indeed a Biden win will most likely produce a Democratic sweep while a Trump win will produce the status quo. Chart 16Tight Senate Races Will Turn On White House Race Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Biden’s Agenda After A Blue Sweep Democrats would remove the filibuster – another big difference in outcomes. Biden is more likely to benefit from Democratic control of Congress if he wins. He is also more likely to rely on his top advisers and the party apparatus. Hence the Democratic platform matters more than the Republican platform in this cycle. Investors should set as their base case that a new president will largely succeed in passing his top one or two priorities. Less conviction is warranted after the initial rush of policymaking, as political capital will fall and the economic context will change. But in the honeymoon period, a president can get a lot done, especially if his party controls Congress. Investors would have been wrong to bet against George W. Bush’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act (2001), Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (2009), or Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act (2017). Yet they could never have known that COVID-19 would strike in Trump’s fourth year and overturn the very best macroeconomic forecasts. Critically, if Democrats take the Senate, our base case is that they will remove the filibuster, i.e. the use of debate to block legislation. Biden has suggested that he would look at doing so. President Obama recently linked it to racist Jim Crow laws of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, making it hard for party members to defend keeping the filibuster. Senate minority leader Charles Schumer (D, NY) has signaled a willingness to change the Senate rules if he becomes majority leader. Removing the filibuster would change the game of US lawmaking, enabling the Senate to pass laws with a simple majority of 51 votes – i.e. 50 plus a Democratic vice president. This is entirely within reach. While a handful of moderate Democratic senators may oppose such a dramatic move at first, the Democratic Party leadership will corral its members once it faces the reality of the 60-vote requirement blocking its agenda. The party will remember the last time it took power after a national crisis, in 2009, and the frustrations that the filibuster caused despite having at that time a much stronger Senate majority than it can possibly have in 2021. Populism is rife in the US and it is all about shattering norms. Moreover, the filibuster has already been eroding over the past two administrations (vide judicial appointments). Revoking it would enable Democrats to pass a lot more ambitious legislation, and many more laws, than in previous administrations. This is important because Biden’s agenda is more left-wing than some investors realize given his history as a traditional Democrat. In order to solidify the increasingly powerful progressive faction of his party, symbolized by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Biden created task forces to merge his agenda with that of Sanders. Sanders and his fellow progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have much more influence in the party than their 35% share of the Democratic primary vote implies. The youth wing of the party shares their enthusiasm for Big Government. Here are the key structural changes that matter to investors: Offering public health insurance – A public health option will benefit from government subsidies and thus outcompete private options, reducing their pricing power. The lowest income earners will be enrolled in the program automatically, rapidly boosting its size (Chart 17). Enabling Medicare to negotiate drug prices – Medicare’s drug spending is equivalent to almost 45% of Big Pharma’s total sales. Enabling this government program to bargain with companies over prices will push down prices substantially. However, the sector’s performance is not really tied to election dynamics because President Trump is also pledging to cap drug prices – it is an effect of populism (Chart 18). Doubling the federal minimum wage – The wage will rise from $7.25 to $15 per hour, hitting low margin franchises and small businesses alike. Chart 17Health Care Gives Back Gains After Biden Nomination Health Care Gives Back Gains After Biden Nomination Health Care Gives Back Gains After Biden Nomination Chart 18Big Pharma Faces Onslaught From Both Parties Big Pharma Faces Onslaught From Both Parties Big Pharma Faces Onslaught From Both Parties Eliminating carbon emissions from power generation by 2035 – Countries are already rapidly shifting from coal to natural gas, but the Biden agenda would attempt to move rapidly away from fossil fuels completely (Chart 19). If legislation passes it will revolutionize the energy sector. Prohibiting “right to work” laws – This is only one example of a sweeping pro-labor agenda that would involve an extensive regulatory push and possibly new laws. New laws would prevent states from passing “right to work” laws that give workers more freedoms to eschew labor unions. The removal of the filibuster makes this possible. Moreover Biden will be aggressive in using executive orders to implement a pro-labor agenda, going further than Bill Clinton or Barack Obama attempted to do in recognition of the party’s shift to the left of the political spectrum. Chart 19Blue Sweep Would Bring Climate Policy Onslaught Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Trump Versus Biden: Tariffs Versus Taxes Subsidizing college tuition and low-income housing. US housing subsidies currently make up 25% of domestic private investment in housing and Biden’s government would roll out a significant expansion of these programs. Granting Washington, DC statehood – This is unlikely to happen as two-thirds of Americans are against it. But without the filibuster, Democrats could conceivably railroad it through. Trump’s Agenda Trump’s signature is tariffs – and globally exposed stocks know it. If Trump wins, his domestic legislative agenda will be stymied, other than laws directly aimed at fighting the pandemic and reviving the economy. As mentioned, Trump is unlikely to pass a law building a wall on the southern border. It is conceivable that Trump could pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill with House Democrats, but that is not a priority on the platform and Trump would have to pivot toward compromise. That would depend on Democrats winning the Senate or forcing him to negotiate with the House. Hence a Trump second term will mostly focus on foreign and trade policy. The Republican platform is aggressive on economic decoupling from China, which is ranked third behind tax cuts and pandemic stockpiles.6 Trump, vindicated on protectionism, would likely go after other trade surplus nations. The Chinese could offer some concessions, producing a Phase Two deal early in his second term to avoid sweeping tariffs and encourage him to wage trade war against Europe (Chart 20). Chart 20Trump = Global Trade War Trump = Global Trade War Trump = Global Trade War Trump’s foreign policy would consist of reducing US commitments abroad. Withdrawing from Afghanistan and other scattered conflicts is hardly a game changer. Shifting some forces back from Germany and especially South Korea is far more consequential. It will create power vacuums. But the US is not likely to abandon the allies wholesale. Chart 21Defense Stocks Will Get Wind In Sails Defense Stocks Will Get Wind In Sails Defense Stocks Will Get Wind In Sails Trump has moderated his positions on NATO and other defense priorities over his first term. It is possible he could revert back to his original preferences in a second term, however, so global power vacuums and geopolitical multipolarity will remain a major source of risk for global investors. He will probably also succeed in maintaining large defense spending, despite a Democratic House, given the reality of great power struggle with China and Russia. Geopolitical multipolarity means that defense stocks will continue to enjoy a tailwind from demand both at home and abroad (Chart 21). Investment Takeaways Energy sector struggles most under Democrats. Biden and Trump are both offering reflationary agendas. Where the two agendas diverge most notably, the impacts are largely market-negative – Trump via tariffs, Biden via taxes. The current signals from the market suggest that growth stocks benefit more from a Democratic clean sweep than value stocks (bottom panel, Chart 22). However, the general collapse in value stocks versus growth suggests that there is not much more downside even if the Democrats win (top panel, Chart 22), especially if the 10-year yield rises, as we have been writing in recent research: a selloff in the bond market is the last QE5 puzzle-piece to fall into place. Fed policy, fiscal largess, and the dollar’s decline will support a global cyclical recovery and downtrodden value stocks regardless of the president. The difference is that Biden would slow their relative recovery by piling regulatory burdens on energy as well as health care, which in the US context are a value play. As a reminder, and contrary to popular belief, health care stocks are the largest constituent of the S&P value index with a market cap weight of 21%.7 Trump’s populist “growth at any cost” and deregulatory agenda would persist in a second term and clearly favor value. Yet, if his trade wars get out of hand, they would also weigh on the recovery of these stocks. The difference is that tech stocks are not priced for a Phase Two trade war. If Trump wins it will be a rude awakening. Not to mention that Trump and populist Republicans will seek to target the tech sector for what is increasingly flagrant favoritism in political and cultural debates. Democrats are much more clearly aligned with tech. While they have ambitions of reining in the tech giants as part of the progressive drive against corporate power writ large, Joe Biden will struggle to take on Big O&G, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Tech at the same time in a single four-year term. The logical conclusion is that he will spare Silicon Valley, which maintained a powerful alliance with the Obama administration. He cannot afford to betray his progressive base when it comes to climate policy, so the Obama alliance with domestic O&G producers will suffer. Tech will face regulatory risks but they will not be existential. Chart 22Not Much Downside Left For Value Stocks Not Much Downside Left For Value Stocks Not Much Downside Left For Value Stocks The fact that the final version of the Democratic Party platform did not contain a section on removing federal subsidies for fossil fuels is merely rhetorical.8 The one clear market reaction from this election cycle is the energy sector’s abhorrence of Democratic policies (Chart 23). The difference is that energy is priced for it whereas tech is priced for perfection. Chart 23Energy Sector Loses From Blue Sweep Energy Sector Loses From Blue Sweep Energy Sector Loses From Blue Sweep     Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     In this report we work from the latest policy platforms available. See “Trump Campaign Announces President Trump’s 2nd Term Agenda: Fighting For You!” Trump Campaign, donaldjtrump.com  ; and the draft “2020 Democratic Party Platform” Democratic National Committee, demconvention.com. 2     Bill Barrow, “Biden Says he’d shut down economy if scientists recommended,” Associated Press, August 23, 2020, abcnews.go.com. 3    See Seth Hanlon and Christian E. Weller, “Trump’s Plan To Defund Social Security,” Center for American Progress, August 12, 2020, americanprogress.org; “The 2020 Annual Report Of The Board Of Trustrees Of The Federal Old-Age And Survivors Insurance And Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds,” Social Security Administration, April 22, 2020, ssa.gov. 4    Erica York, “Details And Analysis Of The CREATE JOBS Act,” Tax Foundation, July 30, 2020, taxfoundation.org. 5    See “The Biden Plan For A Clean Energy Revolution And Environmental Justice,” Biden Campaign, joebiden.com. 6    A Democratic Congress could take back the constitutional power over commerce that it delegated to the president back in the 1960s-70s, limiting Trump’s ability to wage trade war. If Republicans hold the Senate, they still might restrain Trump’s protectionism, as they did with his threatened Mexico tariffs in early 2019, but they would not do so until he has already taken a major disruptive action.    7     See “S&P 500 Value,” S&P Dow Jones Indices, spglobal.com. 8    Andrew Prokop, “The Democratic Platform, Explained,” Vox, August 18, 2020, vox.com.  

Highlights Historically, soft-budget constraints have typically been followed by periods of poor equity market performance. Soft-budget constraints could produce two distinct economic scenarios: malinvestment or inflation. Both are negative for equity investors. Odds are that the US will continue to pursue easy money policies, sowing the seeds of US equity underperformance in the years ahead. In contrast to the US, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are presently facing hard-budget constraints, which will weigh on their growth in the near term. However, forced restructuring could boost efficiency and productivity leading to their equity and currency outperformance in the coming years. Unlike other developing economies, China is not currently facing hard-budget constraints. However, the structural overhang from the past 10 years of soft-budget constraints is lingering on and in some cases is increasing. The Thesis The consensus in the investment industry is that cheap money and ample stimulus are good for share prices. We do not disagree with this thesis when it is applied to the near and medium-term equity strategy. However, excessive stimulus and easy money policies — we refer to these as soft-budget constraints — bode ill for share prices in the long run. The investment relevance of this thesis is as follows. Since March, the US has implemented the largest fiscal and central bank stimulus in the world and will likely continue doing so in the coming years (Chart I-1). Such soft-budget constraints will likely support the US economy for now. Nevertheless, they will also sow seeds of future US equity underperformance and currency depreciation. Conversely, many emerging economies (excluding China) have failed to provide sufficient fiscal and credit support to their economies (Chart I-2). The resulting hard-budget constraints will foreshadow their economic underperformance vis-à-vis the US in the coming months. Chart I-1Soft-Budget Policies Will Likely Become Structural In The US Soft-Budget Policies Will Likely Become Structural In The US Soft-Budget Policies Will Likely Become Structural In The US Chart I-2EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Are Facing Hard-Budget Constraints EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Are Facing Hard-Budget Constraints EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan Are Facing Hard-Budget Constraints   That said, hard-budget constraints will force companies in these EM economies into deleveraging, restructuring and improving efficiency. Ultimately, such hard-budget constraints will benefit EM shareholders in the long run. This thesis has been a key rationale behind our decision to close the short EM / long S&P 500 strategy on July 30, and to turn negative on the US dollar on July 9. In the months ahead, we will be looking for an opportunity to upgrade EM equities to overweight versus the S&P500. BOX 1 Gauging Budget Constraints In our opinion, the best way to gauge budget constraints for the real economy is by monitoring changes in the money supply. This is due to the following reasons: First, net changes in the money supply account for all net loan origination. Second, the money supply also reflects the monetization of public and private debt by the central bank and commercial banks. When a central bank and commercial banks acquire a security from or lend to a non-bank entity, they create new money “out of thin air”. No one needs to save for the central bank and commercial banks to lend to or purchase a security from a non-bank. In short, savings versus spending decisions by economic agents (non-banks) do not change the stock of money supply. We have deliberated on these topics at length in past reports. Securities transactions among non-banks do not create new or destroy existing deposits, i.e., they have no impact on the money supply. Rather, these constitute an exchange of securities and existing deposits between sellers and buyers. Provided these types of transactions do not expand the money supply, they do not, according to our framework, alter budget constraints. Finally, the broad money supply, not central bank assets, is the ultimate liquidity available to economic agents to purchase goods and services as well as invest in both real and financial assets. Commercial banks’ excess reserves at the central bank – a large item on the central bank balance sheet - do not constitute a part of the broad money supply. Empirical Evidence The following are examples of soft-budget constraints that were followed by periods of weakening productivity growth, diminishing return on capital and poor equity market performance: 1. China’s soft budget constraints in 2009-10 Due to the post-Lehman crisis stimulus, the change in broad money exploded above 40% of GDP (Chart I-3, top panel). The economy boomed from early 2009 until early 2011 as cheap and abundant money super-charged investment and consumption. Chart I-3China: Easy Money Presaged Falling Return On Assets And Equity Underperformance China: Easy Money Presaged Falling Return On Assets And Equity Underperformance China: Easy Money Presaged Falling Return On Assets And Equity Underperformance However, Chinese share prices — the MSCI China Investable equity index excluding technology, media and telecom (TMT)  — peaked in H1 2011 in absolute terms (Chart I-3, second panel). Relative to the global equity index excluding TMT, the Chinese investable stocks index began underperforming in late 2010 (Chart I-3, third panel). The basis for this equity underperformance was falling return on assets for non-financial companies due to capital misallocation, breeding inefficiencies and diminishing productivity gains (Chart I-3, bottom two panels). In China, the excessive stimulus of 2009 and 2010 and ensuing recurring rounds of soft-budget constraints put a floor under the economy but have destroyed shareholder value. 2. Money overflow in EM ex-China in 2009-10. China’s boom in 2009-10 produced a bonanza for other emerging economies. Not only Chinese imports from developing economies boosted the latter’s balance of payments and income but also international investors rushed into EM equity and fixed income. EM companies and banks took advantage of easy financing and their international borrowing skyrocketed. Finally, EM policy makers stimulated and domestic bank credit boomed. This period of soft-budget constraints led to complacency, lower productivity, falling return on capital and/or inflation in the following years (Chart I-4). Their financial markets performance in the 10 years that followed the soft-budget constraints in 2009-10 has been dismal. The share price index of EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan as well as the total return on their currencies (including the carry) versus the US dollar have been in a bear market (Chart I-4, bottom two panels). 3. The credit and equity bubbles in Japan, Korea and Taiwan of the late 1980s Money and credit bubbles proliferated in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s (Chart I-5, Chart I-6 and Chart I-7).  Chart I-4EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Easy Money In 2009-10 Sowed Seeds Of Bear Market EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Easy Money In 2009-10 Sowed Seeds Of Bear Market EM Ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Easy Money In 2009-10 Sowed Seeds Of Bear Market Chart I-5Japan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Japan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Japan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Chart I-6Korea: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Korea: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Korea: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Chart I-7Taiwan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Taiwan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth Taiwan: Easy Money Produced Equity Bubble And Lower Productivity Growth   Their productivity growth rolled over in the late 1980s amid easy money policies. Share prices deflated in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the 1990s (please refer to the middle and bottom panels of Charts I-5, I-6 and I-7). Chart I-8ASEAN In 1990s: Soft-Budget Constraints Heralded Productivity Demise ASEAN In 1990s: Soft-Budget Constraints Heralded Productivity Demise ASEAN In 1990s: Soft-Budget Constraints Heralded Productivity Demise 4. The boom-bust cycle in emerging Asia ex-China in the 1990s Soft-budget constraints prevailed in many emerging Asian economies in the first half of the 1990s. Foreign money inflows and domestic bank credit produced an economic boom. The consequences of such soft-budget constraints were debt-financed malinvestment, falling return on assets and massive current account deficits (Chart I-8). All of these culminated in epic currency and banking crises. 5. The credit bubbles in the US and Europe leading to the 2008 crash Lax credit standards propelled credit and property booms in the US and Southern Europe in the period of 2002-2007. Broad money ballooned in the euro area and swelled in the US (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 2). These property bubbles unraveled in 2007-08. These are well known, and we will not delve into the details. Soft-Budget Constraints Lead To Malinvestment Or Inflation Soft-budget constraints could produce two distinctive economic scenarios – malinvestment or inflation. Both are negative for equity investors. The malinvestment scenario occurs when easy money propels undisciplined capital spending. Easy and abundant money boosts medium-term growth and, thereby, creates the illusion of an economic miracle. The latter renders companies, creditors, investors and government officials complacent. Creditors lend a lot and do so based on optimistic assumptions while companies expand hastily and invest carelessly. The result is capital misallocation, i.e., companies pour money into projects that do not ultimately produce sufficient cash flow. Equity investors project high growth expectations into the future and bid up share prices. Government officials preside over an unsustainable growth trajectory overlooking lurking systemic risks and deteriorating economic fundamentals. Easy money and unlimited financing typically bode ill for efficiency and productivity— this is simply due to human nature. Companies neglect efficiency considerations and, as a result, productivity stagnates. Consequently, cost overruns and unprofitable investments suffocate corporate profits. Declining corporate earnings at a time of expanded capital base culminate in a collapse of return on capital. This is the crucial reason why share prices drop. As profits and return on capital decline, companies retrench by cutting costs and halting investment spending. Defaults mushroom, leading creditors to cut new financing. The inflation scenario transpires when easy money boosts consumption more than investment. Easy money and unlimited financing lift household income and consumption. This can arise from a large fiscal stimulus or private sector's borrowing and spending. On the one hand, robust household income growth inevitably leads to higher wage growth expectations. On the other hand, limited investment brings about productivity stagnation. Mounting wages and languishing productivity growth lead to rising unit labor costs and, ultimately, result in a corporate profit margin squeeze. Faced with corporate profit margin shrinkage, companies either raise prices, i.e., pass through higher costs, or retrench by shedding labor and shrinking capital spending even further. The latter produces a widespread economic downturn, and stifles business profits and share prices. A symptom of higher inflation is a wider current account deficit. With an economy’s productive capacity lagging behind demand, the gap between the two can be filled in by imports. In addition, escalating domestic costs make a country less competitive, which inhibits exports and bloats imports. When a central bank is unwilling to tighten monetary policy meaningfully amid high and rising inflation and/or a widening current account deficit, it falls behind the inflation curve. This constitutes a very bearish backdrop for the exchange rate. Currency depreciation erodes the country’s equity returns in common currency terms versus other bourses. Can an economy with soft-budget constraints, i.e., booming money growth, avoid both malinvestment and inflation? Yes, it can if it is able to boost productivity growth so that it avoids systemic capital misallocation (i.e., investments produce reasonable returns to pay off to creditors and shareholders) and escapes higher inflation by expanding output faster to meet growing demand. However, achieving higher productivity growth amid soft-budget constraints is easier said than done. Bottom Line: The scenario of malinvestment has been playing out in China since 2009. Capital misallocation also occurred in the US and parts of Europe during the 2002-2007 credit boom, and took place in Japan, Korea and Taiwan in the late 1980s. Malinvestment, with some elements of inflation, occurred in emerging Asian countries prior the 1997-98 crises as well as in many EM economies like India, Indonesia and Brazil in 2009-2012. Investment Implications It is fair to say that the unprecedented economic downturn in the US warranted an exceptionally large stimulus. The question for the next several months and years is whether US authorities will: overstay easy policies and make soft-budget constraints a permanent feature of the US economy, or tighten policy earlier than warranted, or navigate policy perfectly so that the economy is neither too hot nor too cold. Our sense is that US authorities will overstay their easy money policies. If the US continues to pursue macro policies in the form of soft-budget constraints, will the nation experience malinvestment or inflation? Our sense is that the US will likely experience asset bubbles and inflation. As the Federal Reserve stays behind the inflation curve in the coming years, the US dollar will be in a multi-year downtrend. Hence, the strategy should be selling the greenback into rebounds. We switched our short positions in select EM currencies— such as BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, KRW, IDR and PHP —away from the US dollar to an equal-weighted basket of the euro, CHF and JPY on July 9. For now, EM currencies will lag DM currencies. US equity outperformance versus the rest of the world is in the late innings (Chart I-9). The pillars of US equity underperformance in common currency terms will be excessive US equity valuations, a potential new era of US return on capital underperforming the rest of the world and greenback depreciation. Chart I-9US Equity Outperformance Is In Very Late Stages US Equity Outperformance Is In Very Late Stages US Equity Outperformance Is In Very Late Stages The top panel of Chart I-10 illustrates that the difference between US investors owning international stocks and non-US investors holdings of US equities is at a record low. This reveals that both US and foreign investors currently "over-own" US stocks versus non-US equities. Perfect timing of a structural trend reversal is impossible, but we believe US equity outperformance will discontinue before year-end. That was the rationale behind terminating our short EM / long S&P 500 strategy and upgrading EM equity allocation from underweight to neutral. In contrast to the US, EM (ex-China, Korea and Taiwan) are presently facing hard-budget constraints which will weigh on their economic performance in the near term. This is why we are not rushing to upgrade EM stocks and currencies to overweight. However, the lack of cheap money will force these EM countries and their companies to do the right things: deleverage households and companies, clean up and recapitalize their banking systems and undertake corporate restructuring. Ultimately, hard-budget constraints will likely sow the seeds of high productivity and, with it, equity and currency outperformance in the years to come. China is a tricky case. On a positive note, it has not stimulated as much during the pandemic as it did in 2009. Besides, policymakers are now aware of the ills that come with soft-budget constraints and have been working hard to address these. Critically, the Chinese population, businesses and the authorities are all united in the nation’s confrontation with the US. Complacency in this context is not a major risk and the focus on efficiency and productivity will be razor sharp. On the negative side, the credit, money and property bubbles that had not been dealt with before the pandemic are now increasing with the stimulus. Continued malinvestment and falling return on capital in China’s old economy sectors is signified by the very poor performance of China’s cyclical “old economy” stocks (Chart I-11, top panel). In turn, bank share prices are making new cyclical lows underscoring their worsening structural outlook (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-10Global Equity Investors Over-Own US Stocks Versus International Ones Global Equity Investors Over-Own US Stocks Versus International Ones Global Equity Investors Over-Own US Stocks Versus International Ones Chart I-11Chinese Equities: "Old Economy" Cyclicals And Banks Are Dismayed By Structural Malaises Chinese Equities: "Old Economy" Cyclicals And Banks Are Dismayed By Structural Malaises Chinese Equities: "Old Economy" Cyclicals And Banks Are Dismayed By Structural Malaises   Weighing the pros and cons, we infer that the cyclical recovery in China has further to run. This will support China’s growth and equity outperformance for now. That is why we continue to recommend overweighting China within an EM equity portfolio. However, as the credit and fiscal impulses fade starting in H1 next year, structural malaises will resurface posing risks to China’s equity outperformance.  Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Softening operating metrics, the falling US dollar, the reopening of the economy, all suggest that investors should avoid hypermarket stocks. A firming macro backdrop, the USD’s recent drop, along with the bearish signals from financial variables, all concur that investors should start a program of modestly shedding consumer staples exposure. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P hypermarkets index to underweight, today. This move also pushes our S&P consumer staples sector to a modest below benchmark allocation. Table 1 Lessons From The 1940s Lessons From The 1940s Feature In our March 23 Weekly Report, when we identified 20 reasons to start buying equities, we published a cycle-on-cycle profile (Chart 1, top panel) of how the SPX performs following a greater than 20% drawdown. History suggested that, on average, new all-time highs would emerge sometime in early 2022! Unfortunately, this assessment proved offside as the S&P 500 made fresh all-time closing highs last week, less than five months from the March 23 trough. Chart 1Overstretched Overstretched Overstretched Nevertheless, comparing the current unprecedented SPX rebound with the historical recessionary profile remains instructive as it highlights how excessively stretched equities currently appear. The bottom panel of Chart 1 warns that the SPX is vulnerable to a snapback, were the SPX to return to the historical mean or median recovery profile. Likely rising (geo)political risks could serve as a near-term catalyst for a healthy pullback. Importantly, all of the SPX’s return since the March lows is due to the multiple expansion and then some, as forward EPS have taken a beating (not shown). Equities are long duration assets and given the drubbing in the discount rate, the forward P/E multiple has done all the heavy lifting. Chart 2 puts some historical context to the S&P 500 forward P/E going back to 1979 using I/B/E/S data. Empirical data supports finance theory and shows that the 40-year bull market in bond prices has caused a structural upshift to the SPX forward P/E. Chart 2Moving In Opposite Directions Moving In Opposite Directions Moving In Opposite Directions While low rates explain the near all-time highs in the SPX forward P/E, looking ahead we doubt that the SPX multiple can expand much further if we assume that the easy assist from ZIRP is behind us and will not repeat; i.e. the Fed will refrain from wrecking the US banking system by exploring NIRP. In contrast, our analysis suggests that a selloff in the bond market is the missing ingredient that will ignite a massive rotation out of growth stocks and into value and propel deep cyclicals versus defensives to uncharted territory. More specifically, the rallies in copper prices, crude oil and the CRB Raw Industrials index need confirmation from the bond market that they are demand, rather than supply driven. This backdrop will also shift equity returns within deep cyclicals away from a handful of tech stocks and toward other beaten down high operating leverage sectors (i.e. energy, industrials and materials) as we posited in our recent August 3 Special Report “Top 10 Reasons To Start Nibbling On Cyclicals At The Expense Of Defensives”. Zooming out and observing how investors have moved capital from one asset class to the next in the aftermath of QE5 is in order (Chart 3). First, the SPX enjoyed a V-shaped recovery from the March 23 lows. Then in early-May, as we first posited in our May 11 Weekly Report, the big EURUSD up-move was set in motion and investors started piling into short USD positions taking cue from the Fed’s QE5 that was directly targeting the US dollar with liquidity swaps. The debasing of the dollar served as a global reflator. Now the final piece of the QE5 puzzle is the bond market. Chart 3 highlights that in order for QE to work, counterintuitively a selloff in the bond market would confirm that the economy is healing and is ready to start standing on its own two feet. The jury is still out. With regard to the Fed’s remaining bullets, yield curve control (YCC) is one unorthodox tool that the FOMC could choose to deploy in the coming years. On that front, turning back in time and drawing parallels with the 1940s is instructive. In 1942 the Fed, at the behest of the Treasury, pegged long-term interest rates at 2.5% and ballooned its balance sheet in order to finance the government’s expenditures during WWII. The Fed surrendered its independence, and this YCC unwarrantedly stayed in place until 1951 when in the midst of the Korean War, the Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord finally ended the peg of government long-dated bond interest rates.1 Chart 3Bonds Yields Are Left To Rally Bonds Yields Are Left To Rally Bonds Yields Are Left To Rally Chart 4WWII-Like Starting Point WWII-Like Starting Point WWII-Like Starting Point Chart 4 shows the ebbs and flows of the US government’s total debt-to-GDP ratio and fiscal deficit as a percentage of output since 1940. While the debt-to-GDP profile fell from 1945 onward owing partially to a tight fiscal ship that the US subsequently ran, it troughed when the US floated the greenback. Since then, the US has been fiscally irresponsible running large budget deficits and the debt-to-GDP ratio has never looked back and very recently went parabolic (top panel, Chart 4). Charts 5 & 6 take a closer look at some macro variables in the 1940s and Charts 7 &  8 compare them to today. Chart 5The… The… The… Chart 6…1940s… …1940s… …1940s… First, YCC did not prevent the late-1948 recession (Chart 5, shaded areas). Crudely put, monetary stimulus is not a panacea for boom/bust cycles. Second, M2 growth was climbing at a 30%/annum rate, the money multiplier was on a secular advance and money velocity was surging especially in the first half of the 1940s (Chart 6). As a result and as expected, YCC caused three significant inflationary jumps (bottom panel, Chart 6) that aided the US government in bringing down the massive debt-to-GDP ratio (i.e. inflating its way out of a debt trap) that it had accumulated via large deficits in the front half of the 1940s (top panel, Chart 5). Third, interest rates were a coiled spring and once the Treasury-Fed Accord was signed, they exploded higher (fourth panel, Chart 5). Finally, equities fared well during the first three years of YCC until the end of WWII, but then suffered an outsized setback until mid-1949, before recovering and taking out the 1945 highs in 1951 (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 7...Compared With… ...Compared With… ...Compared With… Chart 8…Today …Today …Today Were the Fed to embark on YCC in the near-future in order to monetize the US government’s deficits, there are a few parallels to draw with the 1940s especially given that the starting point of debt-to-GDP is similar to the WWII figure (top panel, Chart 4). The Fed would likely lose its independence. This would be a paradigm shift. The Fed would crowd out fixed income investors, and flood the market with US dollars. M2 money stock would continue to surge. Few investors will be chasing US dollar assets including equities. The path of least resistance would be significantly lower for the US dollar as foreign investors would flee. This debt monetization along with a depreciating currency and swelling money supply would result in inflation rearing its ugly head, especially given that import prices would soar. What is difficult to envision is how the economy would perform during an inflationary impulse. Our sense is that the risk of stagflation would rise significantly, especially given the current inverse correlation between M2 growth and the velocity of money.2 In the stagflationary 1970s, any liquidity injections via higher M2 growth failed to translate into rising money velocity. Importantly, the “Nixon shock” effectively ended the Bretton Woods system and floated the US dollar causing a 40% devaluation from peak-to-trough (Chart 9). Tack on the oil related supply shock and stagflation reigned supreme in the 1970s, owing to cost-push inflation. Chart 9Dollar The Reflator Dollar The Reflator Dollar The Reflator In contrast during the 1940s, demand-pull inflation hit the economy rather hard, as the US was retooling its industrial base to win WWII alongside its allies. Also the US dollar was linked to gold since the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 and ten years later the Bretton Woods international monetary agreement ushered in the era of fixed exchange rates, which is a big difference from the 1970s.3 As a reminder, from a political perspective venturing down the inflation avenue is the least painful way of dealing with a debt burden, rather than pursuing tight fiscal policy which is synonymous with political suicide. From an equity perspective, owning commodity-levered sectors and other hard asset-linked equities including REITs would make sense as we highlighted in our recent inflation Special Report. Health care stocks would also shine in case of an inflationary spurt according to empirical evidence that we highlighted in the same Special Report. On the flip side, our inflation Special Report also revealed that shedding telecom services and utilities would be wise and most importantly avoiding technology stocks. Tech stocks are disinflationary beneficiaries as they are mired in constant deflation and have built business models not only to withstand, but also to thrive in deflation. Inflation is a tech killer as these growth stocks suffer when the discount rate spikes and causes valuations to move from a premium to a discount. Nevertheless, deflation/disinflation is more likely in the coming 12-to-18 months, whereas inflation is at least two-to-three years away as we mentioned in our recent inflation Special Report. This week we continue to augment our cyclicals versus defensives portfolio bent and take our defensive exposure down a notch by downgrading consumer staples to a modest below benchmark allocation via a downgrade in the S&P hypermarkets index. Downgrade Hypermarkets To Underweight… Last summer we upgraded the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight as we were preparing the portfolio to withstand a recessionary shock given that the yield curve had inverted. Fast forward to the March carnage in the equity markets and this defensive move served our portfolio well. However, we did not want to overstay our welcome and set a stop in order to exit this position that was triggered in late-March netting our portfolio 26% in relative gains. More recently, we have been adding cyclical exposure to the portfolio and lightening up on defensives and as a continuation of this shift we are now compelled to downgrade the S&P hypermarkets to underweight. The economy is reopening and thus it no longer pays to seek refuge in safe haven hypermarket equities. In fact most of the macro indicators we track suggest the recession is over that will sustain severe downward pressure on relative share prices. Chart 10 shows that the ISM manufacturing new orders subcomponent has slingshot from below 30 to north of 60, junk spreads are probing all-time lows, consumer confidence has troughed and small and medium enterprises hiring intentions are on the mend. Moreover, the extraordinary fiscal expansion has brought spending forward and PCE is all but certain to skyrocket when the Q3 GDP figures get released in late-October, signaling that the easy money has been made in Big Box retailers (top panel, Chart 11). Similarly, discretionary spending should pick up the slack from staple-related purchases, further dampening the need to own hypermarket shares (middle & bottom panels, Chart 11). Chart 10Rebounding Macro Rebounding Macro Rebounding Macro Chart 11Returning to Normality Returning to Normality Returning to Normality On the operating front, while WMT is making strides in its online presence and offering mix, non-store retail sales are on a tear dominated by King AMZN (as a reminder we are overweight the S&P internet retail index). This is a secular trend and should continue unabated and in a relative sense continue to weigh on hypermarket profitability (bottom panel, Chart 12). Finally, a significant tailwind is turning into a severe headwind for this industry: import price inflation. The US dollar has reversed course and it is in a freefall. Historically, the greenback has been an excellent leading indicator of import price inflation and the current message is grim for hypermarket razor thin profit margins (import prices shown inverted, Chart 13). Chart 12Amazonification Is On Track Amazonification Is On Track Amazonification Is On Track Chart 13Currency Headwinds Currency Headwinds Currency Headwinds Adding it all up, softening operating metrics, the falling US dollar, the reopening of the economy, all suggest that investors should avoid hypermarket stocks. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P hypermarkets index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5HYPC – WMT, COST. …Which Pushes Consumer Staples To A Below Benchmark Allocation The downgrade in the S&P hypermarkets index tilts our S&P consumer staples sector to a modest below benchmark allocation. Countercyclical consumer staples stocks served their purpose and provided the support to our portfolio in the front half of the year when we needed them most. Now that the economic reopening is gaining steam and the government, the health care system and society are all ready to effectively deal with a flare up in the pandemic, the allure of defensive positioning has diminished. In other words, COVID-19 is currently a known known risk versus an unknown unknown risk early in the year, and defending against it now is more successful. Moreover, according to our mid-April research on what sectors investors should avoid during recessionary recoveries, consumer staples stocks trail the SPX on average by 660bps one year following the SPX trough. The current macro backdrop corroborates this analysis and underscores that the path of least resistance is lower for relative share prices. Not only is the ISM manufacturing survey on fire, but also consumer confidence is making an effort to trough (ISM manufacturing and consumer confidence shown inverted, Chart 14). Meanwhile, financial market variables emit a similarly bearish signal for safe haven staples stocks. Following a brief spike in the bond-to-stock ratio (BSR), the BSR has recently resumed its downdraft (top panel, Chart 15). Volatility has all but collapsed since soaring to over 80 in March, as the Fed has orchestrated a quashing of all asset class volatilities (middle panel, Chart 15). Lastly, the pairwise correlation between stocks in the S&P 500 has also nosedived bringing some semblance of normality back into equity markets (bottom panel, Chart 15). All three of these financial market variables will continue to exert downward pressure on relative share prices. Chart 14V-shaped Recovery… V-shaped Recovery… V-shaped Recovery… Chart 15...Across The Board ...Across The Board ...Across The Board On the US dollar front, while consumer goods manufacturers get a P&L translation gain from a depreciating currency, their export exposure is on par with the SPX and does not provide a relative advantage. In marked contrast, empirical evidence shows that relative profitability moves in tandem with the greenback and the USD recent weakness will undercut consumer staples profitability (bottom panel, Chart 16), especially via climbing input cost inflation. In sum, a firming macro backdrop, the US dollar’s recent drop, along with the bearish signals from financial variables, all concur that investors should start a program of modestly shedding consumer staples exposure. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P consumer staples index to underweight. Chart 16Mind the Gap Mind the Gap Mind the Gap Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/special_reports/treasury_fed_accord/background 2     The velocity of money “is the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. If the velocity of money is increasing, then more transactions are occurring between individuals in an economy.” Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 3    Our colleagues from The Bank Credit Analyst recently illustrated how a strong dollar is good for the US economy on a medium term basis. Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Drilling Deeper Into Earnings Drilling Deeper Into Earnings ​​​​​​​ Size And Style Views July 27, 2020 Overweight cyclicals over defensives April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). January 22, 2018 ​​​​​​​Favor value over growth

Highlights Egypt’s balance of payments have deteriorated materially due to both the crash in oil prices and the global pandemic. The country’s foreign funding requirements in 2020 are high and the currency is under depreciation pressures. Unless domestic interest rates are brought considerably lower, the nation’s public debt is on an unsustainable trajectory. Hence, Egypt needs to reduce local interest rates substantially and rapidly. And in so doing, the central bank cannot control or defend the exchange rate. The latter is set to depreciate. Investors should buy Egyptian local currency bonds while hedging their currency exposure. Feature The Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) is depleting its foreign exchange (FX) reserves to defend the currency (Chart I-1). As the CBE’s foreign exchange reserves diminish, so will its ability to support the currency. As such, the Egyptian pound will likely depreciate in the next 6-9 months. Interestingly, despite being a net importer of energy, many of Egypt’s critical macro parameters are positively correlated with oil prices (Chart I-2). Egypt is in fact deeply integrated in the Gulf oil-economy network via trade and capital flows. In other words, Egypt is a veiled play on oil. Chart I-1The CBE Has Been Defending The Currency The CBE Has Been Defending The Currency The CBE Has Been Defending The Currency Chart I-2Egypt: A Veiled Play On Oil Egypt: A Veiled Play On Oil Egypt: A Veiled Play On Oil   Although oil prices have rallied sharply recently, the Emerging Markets Strategy team believes upside is limited and that oil prices will average about $40 over the next three years.1  In addition, local interest rates that are persistently above 10% are disastrous for both Egypt’s domestic demand and public debt sustainability. Egypt’s current account balance strongly correlates with oil prices because of the strong interlinkages that exist between Egypt and the oil-exporting Gulf countries. To preclude a vicious cycle in both the economy and public debt, the CBE should reduce interest rates materially and rapidly. Therefore, higher interest rates cannot be used to defend the exchange rate. Balance Of Payments Strains Egypt’s balance of payments (BoP) dynamics have deteriorated and the probability of a currency devaluation has risen: Current Account: The current account deficit – which stood at $9 billion and 3% of the GDP as of December 2019 – is widening significantly due to the plunge in oil prices this year (Chart I-2, top panel). Egypt’s current account balance strongly correlates with oil prices because of the strong interlinkages that exist between Egypt and the oil-exporting Gulf countries. The latter have been hard hit by the twin shocks of the coronavirus pandemic and the oil crash. First, Egypt’s $27 billion in annual remittances are drying up (Chart I-2, bottom panel). The majority of these transmittals come from Egyptian workers working in Gulf countries. Second, Egypt’s tourism industry – which brings in $13 billion in annual revenues or 4% of GDP – has collapsed due to the pandemic. Tourist arrivals from Middle Eastern countries – which makeup 20% of total tourist arrivals into Egypt – will diminish substantially due to both the pandemic and the negative income shock that the Gulf economies have experienced (Chart I-3). Third, Egyptian exports are in freefall (Chart I-4, top panel). Not only is this due to the freeze in global trade, but also because the country’s exports to the oil-leveraged Arab economies have taken a massive hit. The latter make up 25% of Egypt’s total goods shipments. Chart I-3Egypt: Tourism Is Linked To Oil Prices Egypt: Tourism Is Linked To Oil Prices Egypt: Tourism Is Linked To Oil Prices Chart I-4Exports Revenues Swing With Oil Prices Exports Revenues Swing With Oil Prices Exports Revenues Swing With Oil Prices   Furthermore, since 2019 Egypt has been increasingly exporting natural gas. The collapse in gas prices has probably already wiped out a large of chunk its natural gas export revenues (Chart I-5). Chart 6 exhibits the structure of Egypt’s exports of goods and services. Energy, tourism and transportation constituted 67% of total exports in 2019. Chart I-5Gas Export Revenues Are At Risk Gas Export Revenues Are At Risk Gas Export Revenues Are At Risk Chart I-6Egypt: Structure Of Goods & Services Exports Egypt: A Veiled Oil Play Egypt: A Veiled Oil Play Chart I-7Exports Are Shrinking Amid Resilient Imports Exports Are Shrinking Amid Resilient Imports Exports Are Shrinking Amid Resilient Imports Finally, while export revenues have plunged, imports remain resilient (Chart I-7). Critically, 26% of Egypt’s imports are composed of essential and basic items such as consumer non-durable goods, wheat and maize. Consumption of these staples and goods are less sensitive to business cycle oscillations. Therefore, the nation’s current account deficit has ballooned. A wider current account deficit needs to be funded by foreign inflows. With foreign investors reluctant to provide funds, the CBE has lately been financing BoP by depleting its foreign exchange reserves (Chart I-1, on page 1). Foreign Funding Requirements: Not only is Egypt facing a massively deteriorating current account deficit, but the country also carries large foreign funding debt obligations (FDO). FDOs are the sum of debt expiring in the next 12 months, and interest as well as amortization payments over the next 12 months. FDOs due in 2020 were $24 billion.2 In turn, Egypt’s total foreign funding requirements (FFR) – which is the sum of FDOs and the country’s current account deficit – has risen to $33 billion.3 Importantly, this FFR amount is based on the current account for 2019 and, thereby, does not take Egypt’s deteriorating current account deficit into consideration – as discussed above. Meanwhile, the central bank has net FX reserves of only $8 billion.4 If the monetary authorities continue to fund FFR of $33 billion in 2020 to prevent the pound from depreciating, the CBE will soon run out of its net FX reserves. Overall, Chart I-8 compares Egypt to the rest of the EM universe: with respect to (1) exports-to-FDO on the x-axis and (2) foreign exchange reserves-to-FFR on the y-axis. Based on these two measurements, Egypt is among the most vulnerable EM countries in terms of the balance of payments as it has the lowest FX reserves-to-FFR ratio and a low export-to-FDO ratio as well. Chart I-8Egypt Is One Of The Most Exposed EM Countries To Currency Depreciation Egypt: A Veiled Oil Play Egypt: A Veiled Oil Play Chart I-9FDI Inflows Are Set To Diminish FDI Inflows Are Set To Diminish FDI Inflows Are Set To Diminish Foreign Funding of Private Sector: Egypt will struggle to attract private-sector foreign inflows to meet its large FFR amid this adverse regional economic environment and the likely renewed relapse in oil prices in the months ahead. FDI inflows are set to drop (Chart I-9). The oil & gas sector has been the largest recipient of FDI inflows recently (around 55% in 2019 according to the central bank). The crash in both crude oil and natural gas prices will therefore ensure that FDIs into this sector will dry up. Besides, overall FDI inflows emanating from Gulf countries are poised to shrink substantially.5 Chart I-10The Egyptian Pound Is Once Again Expensive The Egyptian Pound Is Once Again Expensive The Egyptian Pound Is Once Again Expensive Foreign Funding of Government: With FDI inflows diminishing, the Egyptian government has once again been forced to approach the IMF for assistance. The country managed to secure $8 billion in assistance from the IMF ($2.8 billion in May and $5.2 in June). This has ameliorated international investor confidence in Egypt. Indeed, the country raised $5 billion by issuing US dollar-denominated sovereign bonds in May. Egypt is now seeking another $4 billion from other international lenders. Crucially, assuming Egypt manages to get the $4 billion loan, which would allow it to raise a total of $17 billion, Egypt would still be short on foreign funding to finance its $33 billion in FFR. Therefore, the currency will come under pressure of devaluation. As we argue below, the nation’s public debt sustainability is in jeopardy unless local currency interest rates are brought down substantially. This can only happen if the currency is allowed to depreciate. Consistently, foreign investors might be unwilling to lend to Egypt until interest rates are pushed lower and the country’s public debt trajectory is placed back on a sustainable path. Finally, the Egyptian pound has once again become expensive according to the real effective exchange rate (REER) which is based on both consumer and producer prices (Chart I-10). Bottom Line: Egypt is facing sharply slowing foreign inflows due to both the crash in oil prices and the global pandemic. This is occurring amid increased FFRs. Meanwhile, the CBE’s net FX reserves are insufficient to defend the exchange rate. Public Debt Sustainability The BoP strains discussed above are forcing the CBE to keep interest rates high to prevent the currency from depreciating. Yet the country’s public debt is on a dangerous path due to elevated interest rates. In turn, without currency devaluation that ultimately allows local interest rates to drop dramatically, the sustainability of Egypt’s public debt will worsen considerably. The BoP strains discussed above are forcing the CBE to keep interest rates high to prevent the currency from depreciating. Yet the country’s public debt is on a dangerous path due to elevated interest rates. To start, Egypt’s public debt stands at 97% of GDP – local currency and foreign currency debt account for 79% and 18% of GDP respectively (Chart I-11, top panel). Chart I-12 illustrates that interest payments on public debt is already using up 60% of government revenue and stands at 10% of GDP. Chart I-11Egypt: Public Debt Profile Egypt: Public Debt Profile Egypt: Public Debt Profile Chart I-12The Government's Interest Payments Are Unsustainable The Government's Interest Payments Are Unsustainable The Government's Interest Payments Are Unsustainable   Therefore, if the CBE keeps interest rates at the current level, then the government will continue to pay high interest on its debt. Generally, two conditions need to be met to ensure public debt sustainability in any country (i.e., to ensure that the public debt-to-GDP ratio does not to surge). Nominal GDP growth needs to be higher than government borrowing costs. The government needs to run persistently large primary fiscal surpluses. Chart I-13Egypt: Nominal GDP Growth And Government Borrowing Costs Egypt: Nominal GDP Growth And Government Borrowing Costs Egypt: Nominal GDP Growth And Government Borrowing Costs Regarding the first condition, nominal GDP growth was already dangerously close to the level of Egypt’s government borrowing costs even before the pandemic hit Egypt (Chart I-13). With the pandemic, both domestic demand and exports have plunged. Consequently, nominal GDP is likely close to zero while local currency borrowing costs are above 10%. So long as nominal GDP growth remains below borrowing costs, the public debt sustainability will continue to deteriorate. As to the second condition, Egypt only started running primary fiscal surpluses in 2018 as it implemented extremely tight fiscal policy by cutting non-interest expenditures (Chart I-14). However, that was only possible because economic growth was then strong. As growth has slumped, government revenue is most likely shrinking. Chart I-14Egypt Only Recently Started Running A Primary Fiscal Surplus Egypt Only Recently Started Running A Primary Fiscal Surplus Egypt Only Recently Started Running A Primary Fiscal Surplus Tightening fiscal policy amid the economic downturn will be ruinous. Cutting non-interest expenditures further will depress the already weak economy, drying up both nominal GDP and government revenues even more. This will bring about a vicious economic cycle. Needless to say, the latter option is politically unviable. The most feasible option to ensure sustainability of public debt dynamics is to bring down domestic interest rates considerably. Lower local interest rates will reduce interest expenditures on its domestic debt and will either narrow overall fiscal deficit or free up space for the government to spend elsewhere, boosting much needed economic growth. Meanwhile lower interest rates will boost demand for credit and revive private-sector domestic demand. Provided Egypt’s public debt has a short maturity profile, lower interest rates will reasonably quickly feed into lower interest payments for the government. This means that lower interest rates could reasonably quickly feed to lower interest payments for the government. Importantly, there is a trade-off between the exchange rates and interest rates. Lowering interest rates entail currency depreciation. According to the impossible trinity theory, a central bank facing an open capital needs to choose between controlling interest rates or the exchange rate, it cannot control both simultaneously. As such, if the Central Bank of Egypt opts to bring down local interest rates, while keeping the capital account reasonably open, it needs to tolerate a weaker currency amid its ongoing BoP strains. Bottom Line: Public debt dynamics are treading on a dangerous path. Egypt needs to bring down local interest rates down substantially and rapidly. And in so doing, the CBE cannot control and defend the exchange rate. Devaluation Is Needed All in all, the Egyptian authorities are facing a tight tradeoff: (1) either they continue to defend the currency at the expense of depressing the economy and worsening public debt dynamic, or (2) they tolerate a one-off currency devaluation which would allow the monetary authorities reduce interest rates aggressively. The latter will help stimulate economic growth and make public debt sustainable. Specifically, if the Central Bank of Egypt opts for defending the currency from depreciation, it will need to tolerate much higher interest rates for a long period of time. The CBE would essentially need to deplete whatever little net FX reserves it currently has to fund BoP deficits. This would simultaneously shrink local banking system liquidity, pushing domestic interbank rates higher.  All in all, the Egyptian authorities are facing a tight tradeoff: (1) either they continue to defend the currency at the expense of depressing the economy and worsening public debt dynamic, or (2) they tolerate a one-off currency devaluation which would allow the monetary authorities reduce interest rates aggressively. Worryingly, not only would high interest rates devastate the already shaky Egyptian economy, but higher domestic interest rates carry major ramifications for Egypt’s public debt sustainability as discussed earlier. A one-off currency devaluation is painful and carries some political risks yet, it is still the least worst choice for Egypt from a longer-term perspective. Although inflation will spike due to pass-through from currency devaluation, it will be a transitory one-off increase (Chart I-15). Besides, the pertinent risk to the Egyptian economy currently is low inflation and high real interest rates (Chart I-16). Chart I-15Egypt: Currency-Induced Inflation Is A One-Off Egypt: Currency-Induced Inflation Is A One-Off Egypt: Currency-Induced Inflation Is A One-Off Chart I-16Egypt: Real Interest Rates Are High Egypt: Real Interest Rates Are High Egypt: Real Interest Rates Are High     In turn, currency depreciation will ultimately provide the CBE with scope to reduce its policy rate which will help stimulate the ailing economy as well as make public debt trajectory more sustainable. Finally, odds are high that Egyptian authorities might choose to devalue the currency sooner rather than later. The basis for this is that the government’s foreign public debt is still relatively small at 18% of the GDP and 19% of the total government debt (Chart I-11, on page 8). Further, the majority (70%) of Egypt’s foreign public debt remains linked to international and bilateral government loans making it easier to renegotiate their terms than in the case of publicly traded sovereign US dollar bonds (Chart I-11, bottom panel). This means that currency depreciation will not materially deteriorate the government’s debt servicing ability. Furthermore, Egypt has experience managing and tolerating currency depreciation. The currency depreciated against the US dollar by 50% in 2016 and before that by 12% in 2013. Bottom Line: The Central Bank of Egypt will not hike interest rates or sell its foreign currency reserves for too long to defend the pound. Odds are high that it will allow the currency to depreciate and will cut interest rates materially. Investment Recommendations Chart I-17Egyptian Pound In The Forward Market Egyptian Pound In The Forward Market Egyptian Pound In The Forward Market Investors should buy Egyptian 3-year local currency bonds while hedging their currency exposure. The basis is that low inflation and a depressed economy in Egypt will lead the CBE to cut rates by several hundred basis points over the next 12 months while allowing currency to depreciate. Forward markets are pricing 5% depreciation in the EGP in the next 6 months and 10% in the next 12 months (Chart I-17). We would assign a higher probability of depreciation.   For now, EM credit portfolios should have a neutral allocation on Egyptian sovereign credit. While another potential drop in oil prices and the currency devaluation could push sovereign spreads wider (Chart I-18), eventually large rate cuts by the CBE will make public debt dynamics more sustainable. Absolute return investors should wait for devaluation to go long on Egypt’s US dollar sovereign bonds. Chart I-18Remain Neutral On Egypt's Sovereign Credit Remain Neutral On Egypt's Sovereign Credit Remain Neutral On Egypt's Sovereign Credit Chart I-19Remain Neutral On Egyptian Equities Remain Neutral On Egyptian Equities Remain Neutral On Egyptian Equities   Equity investors should keep a neutral allocation on Egyptian stocks with an EM equity portfolio (Chart I-19). Lower interest rates ahead will eventually boost this stock market. Ayman Kawtharani Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com      1 This is the view of BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service and it differs from the view of BCA’s Commodities and Energy Strategy service. 2 We exclude the Central Bank’s foreign liabilities due in 2020 as they are mostly deposits at the Central Bank of Egypt owed to Gulf countries. It is highly likely that Gulf lenders will agree to extend these deposits given the difficulties Egypt is experiencing. 3 Excluding the Central Bank’s foreign liabilities due in the next 12 months. Please refer to above footnote. 4 The amount of net foreign exchange reserves currently at the Central Bank – i.e. excluding the Bank’s foreign liabilities– are now low at $8 billion. 5 Gulf Co-operation Countries (GCC) are in no position to provide much financial assistance due to the pandemic and oil crash as they are under severe financial strain themselves. Also, GCC countries run strict currency pegs and need to preserve their dwindling foreign exchange reserves to defend their currency pegs to the US dollar.

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan will be examining the global effectiveness of recent pandemic containment measures to judge both the odds of a second infection wave and what policy responses are likely to be effective in countering one were it to occur. I hope you find the report insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Fiscal deficits have soared in the wake of the pandemic, putting government debt-to-GDP ratios on a trajectory to reach post-WWII highs in many countries. Contrary to popular belief, there is little reason to think that fiscal relief will make it more difficult for governments to repay their obligations down the road. Larger budget deficits tend to increase overall national savings when the economy is depressed because private savings rise more than enough to compensate for the decline in government savings. The end result is a higher level of national wealth that governments can tax in the future. That said, there is more than one way to tax national wealth. For political reasons, higher inflation coupled with financial repression may prove to be more feasible than other forms of taxation. While inflation is not an imminent risk, it could become a formidable problem in two-to-three years. Investors should maintain below-benchmark levels of duration in fixed-income portfolios and favor inflation-linked securities over nominal bonds. Gold prices will rise over the long haul. The yellow metal should perform well even in the near term if the dollar weakens during the remainder of this year, as we anticipate. Real estate investors should reallocate capital away from densely populated urban areas towards suburbs and farmland. Stay Cyclically Overweight Equities Global equities continued to climb higher this week, as more countries reopened their economies. As we discussed three weeks ago in our report entitled “Risks To The U,” the main downside risk facing stocks is a second wave of the disease.1 While the number of new COVID-19 cases has declined in many countries, it continues to rise in others. As a result, the global tally of new cases remains broadly flat. The daily number of deaths seems to be trending lower, but that could easily reverse if social distancing measures are abandoned too quickly (Chart 1). Chart 1COVID-19: Global New Cases Remain Broadly Flat, While Deaths Seem To Be Trending Slightly Lower Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover? Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover? Chart 2Joined At The Hip Joined At The Hip Joined At The Hip Given this risk, we do not have a strong near-term (3-month) view on the direction of equities. Google searches for the “coronavirus” have closely correlated with equity prices and credit spreads (Chart 2). If fears of a new outbreak were to escalate, risk assets would suffer. Looking at a cyclical (12-month) horizon, we still recommend a modest overweight to stocks. Even if a vaccine does not become available later this year, increased testing should allow for a more economically palatable approach to containment strategies. Ample fiscal support will also help. As we provocatively asked in a report entitled “Could The Pandemic Lead To Higher Stock Prices?”,2 one can easily imagine a scenario where central banks keep rates near zero for the foreseeable future, while ongoing fiscal stimulus enables the labor market to reach full employment. Such an outcome could allow corporate profits to return to pre-pandemic levels, but leave the discount rate lower than before. The end result would be a higher fair value for the stock market. Although we would not counsel investors to bank on such a fortuitous outcome, the probability of it occurring is reasonably high – probably in the range of 30%-to-40%. This makes us inclined to favor stocks over a cyclical horizon. Will Indebted Governments Spoil The Party? One potential flaw in this bullish thesis is that massive government deficits could push up interest rates, crowding out private-sector investment in the process. As we argue below, such worries are misplaced for now. For the time being, bigger budget deficits will likely lead to an increase in overall savings, thus raising investment relative to what would have happened in the absence of any stimulus. That said, as we conclude towards the end of this report, there will come a time – probably in two-to-three years – when most economies are back to full employment. If budget deficits are still high at that point, inflation and long-term bond yields could end up rising substantially. Keynes To The Rescue The IMF expects budget deficits in advanced economies to exceed 10% of GDP in 2020, significantly higher than during the financial crisis. The sea of red ink is projected to push government debt-to-GDP ratios to fresh highs in many economies (Chart 3). Chart 3AGovernment Debt Levels Have Surged In The Wake Of The Pandemic Government Debt Levels Have Surged In The Wake Of The Pandemic Government Debt Levels Have Surged In The Wake Of The Pandemic Chart 3BGovernment Debt Levels Have Surged In The Wake Of The Pandemic Government Debt Levels Have Surged In The Wake Of The Pandemic Government Debt Levels Have Surged In The Wake Of The Pandemic Chart 4The Paradox Of Thrift: Not Just A Theory The Paradox Of Thrift: Not Just A Theory The Paradox Of Thrift: Not Just A Theory Should bond investors be worried? Not for now. One of John Maynard Keynes’ great insights was that an individual’s attempt to increase savings could lead to a collective decline in savings, a phenomenon he called the paradox of thrift. Keynes argued that if everyone tried to save more, the resulting contraction in spending would cause total employment to fall by so much that overall income would decline by more than spending. As a result, aggregate savings would fall. This is precisely what happened during the Great Depression and in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 4). The paradox of thrift implies that bigger budget deficits in a depressed economy will lead to an increase in overall savings, as private savings rise more than one dollar for every dollar decline in government savings. S-I=CA One can see this point using the familiar macroeconomic accounting identity which says that the difference between what a country saves and invests should equal its current account balance.3 In the absence of a change in the current account balance, any increase in investment will translate into an increase in savings. If the government stimulates aggregate demand by increasing spending, cutting taxes, or boosting transfer payments, companies are likely to respond by investing more (or at least not cutting capital expenditures as much as they would otherwise). Thus, if fiscal stimulus raises investment, it will also raise aggregate savings. Chart 5Huge Spike In The US Personal Savings Rate Huge Spike In The US Personal Savings Rate Huge Spike In The US Personal Savings Rate This conclusion has important implications for bond yields. If bigger budget deficits lead to an increase in overall savings, there is no reason to expect real bond yields to rise very much, at least in the short term. The failure of bond yields to rise since March, when governments began to trot out one fiscal stimulus package after another, is a testament to this fact. So too is the stimulus-induced surge in the US personal saving rate, which reached a record high of 33% in April (Chart 5). All That Money Printing If bigger government budget deficits are, in some sense, self-financing, why are so many people convinced that the Fed and other central banks are effectively “monetizing” deficits by buying up bonds? Part of the answer has to do with how one defines monetization. Governments create money whenever they purchase goods or services or make transfers to the public by running down their deposits at the central bank. In theory, the public could use that money to buy government bonds, which would allow the government to replenish its account at the central bank. In practice, it is usually a bit more circuitous than that. Chart 6Commercial Banks Deposits, Bank Reserve Held At The Fed, And Fed Holdings Of Treasuries Have All Expanded This Year Commercial Banks Deposits, Bank Reserve Held At The Fed, And Fed Holdings Of Treasuries Have All Expanded This Year Commercial Banks Deposits, Bank Reserve Held At The Fed, And Fed Holdings Of Treasuries Have All Expanded This Year What normally happens is that the public places the money in a commercial bank deposit and the commercial bank then transfers the money to its account at the central bank. Next, the central bank buys the bonds from the government, crediting the government’s deposit account at the central bank in the process. Chart 6 shows that this is precisely what has happened this year: Commercial bank deposits, bank reserves held at the Fed, and the Fed’s holdings of Treasuries have all risen by roughly the same amount. Granted, there is a bit more to the story. If the central bank buys bonds, it will push down bond yields at the margin, allowing the government to finance itself more cheaply than it could otherwise. However, this is a far cry from the sort of “money printing” that many people have in mind. True debt monetization occurs when governments lose all access to outside financing, forcing the central bank to pick up the tab. Such situations invariably involve accelerating inflation and a collapsing currency, which often culminates in hyperinflation. This is clearly not the case today. Back To Full Employment The idea that bigger budget deficits can generate enough private savings to more than fully compensate for any loss in government savings is applicable only for economies with spare capacity. Once the economy reaches full employment, fiscal stimulus will not lead to more income or production since everyone who wants a job already has one. At that point, bigger budget deficits will cause the economy to overheat and inflation to rise, potentially forcing the central bank to raise rates. Higher interest rates will reduce investment. Higher rates will also put upward pressure on the currency, leading to a reduction in net exports and a corresponding deterioration in the current account balance. If investment and the current account balance both decline, then savings, which is just the sum of the two, must also fall. Strategies For Alleviating A Debt Burden Once the free lunch from fiscal stimulus disappears, the question of how to address the government debt accumulated during the downturn becomes paramount. There are four ways to reduce the ratio of government debt-to-GDP: 1) outgrow the debt burden; 2) tighten fiscal policy; 3) default; and 4) inflate away the debt. Outgrowing It At the end of the Second World War, many governments found themselves saddled with high levels of debt. In the US, the government debt-to-GDP ratio stood at 121% in 1945. In the UK, it hit 270%. In Canada, it reached 155%. For the most part, these governments did not repay the debt they incurred during the war. As Chart 7 shows, the nominal value of debt outstanding either rose or remained broadly constant following the war. What happened was that rapid GDP growth led to a shrinkage in debt-to-GDP ratios. Compared with the post-war period, the two drivers of an economy’s growth potential, labor force and productivity growth, are both weaker now. Thus, outgrowing the debt by raising the denominator of the debt-to-GDP ratio will be more difficult than in the past. It’s About g-r That said, the trajectory of the debt-to-GDP ratio does not depend solely on GDP growth; it also depends on the interest rate that the government pays to service its debt. Conceptually, it is the difference between the two that determines whether the level of any given budget deficit is sustainable or not. While trend GDP growth in advanced economies has declined since the 1950s, equilibrium interest rates have also fallen. As a consequence, the spread between growth rates and interest rates is only somewhat smaller in advanced economies today than it was in the 1950s and 60s and notably higher than it was in the 1980s and 90s (Chart 8). Indeed, as Chart 9 shows, g-r has been trending higher for hundreds of years! Chart 7The Case Of Outgrowing The Debt Burden Post-WWII The Case Of Outgrowing The Debt Burden Post-WWII The Case Of Outgrowing The Debt Burden Post-WWII Chart 8The Rate Of Economic Growth Has Been Higher Than Interest Rates Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover? Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?   Chart 9A Multi-Century Trend In The Spread Between Growth And Interest Rates Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover? Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover? Today, government borrowing rates in most economies are well below trend growth rates. No matter the size of the budget deficit, the ratio of debt-to-GDP will converge to a stable level as long as the interest rate the government pays on the debt is below the growth rate of the economy.4  A Gordian Fiscal Knot Of course, there is no guarantee that real rates will remain below the rate of trend growth. As we have discussed before, the exodus of baby boomers from the labor force, a peak in globalization, and rising political populism could all curtail aggregate supply, leading to a depletion of national savings.5 What would happen if governments allowed debt levels to reach very high levels only to find that the neutral rate of interest — the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation — has risen above the growth rate of the economy? Raising the policy rate would be very painful in a high-debt environment because even a small increase in interest rates would lead to a large rise in interest payments. Faced with this reality, some governments might elect to tighten fiscal policy. An increase in taxes or a decline in government spending would not only create some resources to pay back debt, but it would also reduce aggregate demand, pushing down the neutral rate of interest in the process. Don’t Blame The Stimulus Ironically, all the fiscal relief efforts that governments have carried out over the past few months have probably left them better placed to pay back debt than if no stimulus had been undertaken in the first place. Box 1 illustrates this point with a numerical example, but the intuition for this claim can be seen easily enough. As noted earlier, fiscal stimulus in a depressed economy will raise overall savings. This means that after the pandemic is over, governments will have a larger tax base available to them than they would have had in the absence of any stimulus (although, obviously, the tax base would be even larger if the pandemic had never occurred). The Inflation Solution Chart 10Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Very Depressed Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Very Depressed Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Very Depressed Still, any decision to tighten fiscal policy down the road is going to be an inherently political one. What if governments do not have the political will to tighten fiscal policy even if the economy begins to overheat? Defaulting on the debt is always an option in that case, but not one that any sensible government would choose given the devastating impact this would have on the financial system and broader economy. Rather, it is conceivable that governments will lean on central banks to keep rates low and let inflation accelerate. While higher inflation will not boost real GDP, it will raise nominal GDP, allowing the ratio of government debt-to-GDP to decline. Investors currently assign very low odds to such an outcome. Long-term market-based inflation expectations remain very depressed (Chart 10). Yet, we think such an eventuality is more plausible than widely believed. As long as inflation does not spiral out of control, central banks are likely to welcome rising prices. A higher inflation rate would make monetary policy more effective by allowing central banks to bring real rates deeper into negative territory whenever the economy falls into recession. Higher inflation would also result in steeper yield curves, reoxygenating commercial banks’ profitability. Profiting From Higher Inflation The path to higher interest rates is paved with lower rates. In order to generate inflation, central banks will need to keep rates at very low levels even once the economy has returned to full employment. Given that unemployment is quite high today, inflation is not an imminent risk. However, it could become a formidable problem in two-to-three years. Investors should maintain below-benchmark levels of duration in fixed-income portfolios and favor inflation-linked securities over nominal bonds. While gold is no longer super cheap, it remains a good hedge against inflation. The yellow metal should also do well if the dollar weakens during the remainder of this year, as we anticipate. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar tends to fall whenever global growth picks up (Chart 11). Chart 11Gold Will Do Well When The Dollar Weakens As Global Growth Picks Up Gold Will Do Well When The Dollar Weakens As Global Growth Picks Up Gold Will Do Well When The Dollar Weakens As Global Growth Picks Up Chart 12Farmland Would Benefit From High Inflation Farmland Would Benefit From High Inflation Farmland Would Benefit From High Inflation Lastly, land will gain from low interest rates in the near term and higher inflation in the long term. Farmland and suburban land are particularly appealing. The pandemic has made remote working more commonplace. It has also highlighted the potential dangers of living in densely populated cities. Since most suburbs are built on top of land that was previously zoned for agriculture, farmland should benefit from the retreat from urban living, much like it did during the inflationary period of the 1970s (Chart 12). Box 1Saving More By Spending More Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover? Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Risks To The U,” dated May 7, 2020. 2  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Could The Pandemic Lead To Higher Stock Prices?” dated April 23, 2020. 3  Gross Domestic Product (GDP) can be computed as the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G), and net exports (X-M). Gross National Product (GNP) is equal to GDP except that the former includes net income from abroad (which is included in the current account balance). Thus, GNP=C+I+G+CA, or GNP-C-G=I+CA. Savings (S) is equal to GNP-C-G. Taken together, the two expressions imply S-I=CA, or S=I+CA. 4  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, ”Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019. 5  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Structural Bear Market In Bonds,” dated February 16, 2018. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover? Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover? Current MacroQuant Model Scores Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover? Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?

Highlights In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. Feature The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart II-1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23rd, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart II-1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures May 2020 May 2020 Chart II-1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Instead, Chart II-2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.8 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart II-2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures May 2020 May 2020 Analysis by Bruegel provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table II-1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table II-1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries May 2020 May 2020 Table II-1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Chart II-3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.2 Chart II-3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart II-3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not May 2020 May 2020 Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts II-1 – II-3 and Table II-1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart II-4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart II-4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart II-4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect May 2020 May 2020 The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart II-5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). Chart II-5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects May 2020 May 2020 The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart II-5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables II-2 and II-3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. Table II-2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions May 2020 May 2020 Table II-3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound May 2020 May 2020 The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables II-2 and II-3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table II-2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Second, Table II-3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box II-1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box II-1 The “Bucket” Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The IMF “bucket” approach to estimating fiscal multiplier involves determining the multiplier that is likely to apply to a given country during “normal” circumstances, based on a set of structural characteristics associated with larger multipliers. This “normal” multiplier is then adjusted based on the following formula: M = MNT * (1+Cycle) * (1+Mon) Where M is the final multiplier estimate, MNT is the “normal times” multiplier derived from structural characteristics, Cycle is the cyclical factor ranging from −0.4 to +0.6, and Mon is the monetary policy stance factor ranging from 0 to 0.3. The Cycle factor is higher the more a country’s output gap is negative, and the Mon factor is higher the closer the economy is to the zero lower bound. Table II-B1 applies the IMF’s approach to the US, using the same structural score as the IMF presented in the note that described the approach. The table highlights that the approach suggests a US fiscal multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 given the maximum cycle adjustment proscribed by the rule, which we feel is reasonable given the unprecedented rise in US unemployment. We make no adjustment to the range for the zero lower bound. Table II-B1A Multiplier Estimate Of 1.1 – 1.6 Seems Reasonable For The US May 2020 May 2020 The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts II-1 - II-3 on pages 28-31. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. Chart II-6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses May 2020 May 2020 For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart II-6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart II-6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table II-4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance. The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments. Table II-4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs May 2020 May 2020 Firms: On April 16th the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured. However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table II-5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The Table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. Table II-5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income May 2020 May 2020 Chart II-7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response. The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30th when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent. Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart II-7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.3 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart II-8 reproduces Chart II-3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart II-8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart II-8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Chart II-8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany May 2020 May 2020 Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table II-6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.4 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table II-6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave May 2020 May 2020 The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31st or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table II-6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart II-9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart II-9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State May 2020 May 2020 Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart II-10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart II-10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart II-11). Chart II-11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort May 2020 May 2020 Chart II-12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart II-12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Chart II-13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Third, Chart II-13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports Footnotes 1  Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 2  Please note that Chart II-3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 3 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, www.bcaresearch.com. 4 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.

Dear Client, This week, in lieu of our regular report, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan discusses the global fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and provides some perspective on whether the response will be enough to prevent an "L-shaped" economic outcome. I hope you find the report insightful. Last Friday, I participated in a webcast with my fellow BCA Strategists Caroline Miller and Arthur Budaghyan where we discussed the outlook for developed and emerging market equities over the immediate (0-3 month) and cyclical (12 month) horizon. You can access a replay of the webcast here. Please note we will be sending out our regular weekly report next week. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. Feature The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart 1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart 1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Chart 1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Instead, Chart 2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.1 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart 2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Analysis by Bruegel, provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table 1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table 1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Table 1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Chart 3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.2Chart 3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart 3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts 1 – 3 and Table 1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart 4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart 4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart 4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart 5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart 5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Chart 5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables 2 and 3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables 2 and 3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table 2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Table 2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Table 3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Second, Table 3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box 1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box 1The 'Bucket' Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts 1 - 3 on pages 3-5. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. Chart 6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart 6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart 6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table 4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance.   Table 4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments.   Firms: On April 16 the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured.   Table 5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table 5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response.  The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30 when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent.   Chart 7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart 7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.3 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart 8 reproduces Chart 3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart 8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. Chart 8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart 8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table 6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.4 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table 6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31 or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table 6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart 9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart 9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart 10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart 10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart 11). Chart 11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart 12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Third, Chart 13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. Chart 12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Chart 13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged   So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 2 Please note that Chart 3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 3 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? Current MacroQuant Model Scores The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough?