Economy

Highlights Rapidly changing news flows are forcing oil markets to recalibrate supply-demand fundamentals continuously. This will keep volatility at or close to recent record highs (Chart of the Week). The demand shock from COVID-19 accounts for ~ 65% of the oil price collapse, based on our modeling. USD demand is fueling record dollar strength, which could suppress commodity consumption after the COVID-19 shock dissipates. If the Fed’s epic monetary policy response sates USD demand, commodity demand will rebound strongly. Highly uncertain expectations on the supply side – fueled by the market-share war between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia set to begin in earnest April 1 – will keep global policy uncertainty elevated post-COVID-19. Texas regulators are debating the efficacy of re-establishing a long-dormant policy mandating the state’s Railroad Commission (RRC) pro-rate production. The chairman of the RRC and the CEO of Russia’s state oil champion Rosneft both oppose production-management schemes, arguing they allow other producers to steal market share. The Trump administration, however, sees potential in working with KSA to stabilize markets. Feature Sparse information available to markets makes it extremely difficult to estimate the impact of the COVID-19 shock to demand. Oil options’ implied volatility reached record levels following unprecedented price changes – down and up – in the underlying futures markets over the past month, as the Chart of the Week shows.1 This reflects the markets’ profound uncertainty regarding supply, demand and near-term policy outcomes that will affect these fundamentals in the short-, medium- and long-term. Sparse information available to markets makes it extremely difficult to estimate the impact of the COVID-19 shock to demand. The ever-changing evolution of supply dynamics presents its own – unprecedented – difficulties. The usual lags in information on supply and demand are compounded by the near-certain substantial revisions that will accompany these data as a better picture of the fundamentals emerges. Chart of the WeekOil Price Volatility At Record Level That said, we are attempting to develop models and an intuition for likely turning points on both sides of the fundamentals. We stress up front that these estimates are tentative, particularly on the demand side, as they use commodity prices and financial variables that are difficult to track closely even in the best of times, and are themselves continuously adjusting to highly uncertain fundamentals. COVID-19 Crushes Commodity Demand Oil prices fell 60% YTD after being struck by simultaneous demand and supply exogenous shocks (Chart 2). We capture the effect of the demand shock with a combination of multivariate regressions using various cyclical commodities, the US trade-weighted dollar, and 10-year treasury yields. Global demand for cyclical commodities – including oil – is fundamentally related to global economic activity. By extracting the common information from these commodity prices, we can estimate the proportion of the oil price decline associated with the ongoing demand shock.2 Chart 2Oil-Price Collapse Of 2020 We estimate roughly 60% of the crude oil price drop so far this year can be explained by the sharp contraction in global demand caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. To estimate the impact of the demand shock from the COVID-19 pandemic on crude oil prices, we expanded a model developed by James Hamilton in the last market-share war of 2014-16.3 Hamilton’s model uses market-cleared prices outside of oil – copper, the USD and 10-year nominal US treasurys – to estimate the extent of the global aggregate demand shock. We estimate roughly 60% of the crude oil price drop so far this year can be explained by the sharp contraction in global demand caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart 3). Some specific refined-product demand (i.e., air and car travel, marine-fuel consumption) was hit harder, meaning the demand shock would be higher in those sectors. For transportation-related refined products, COVID-19-related impacts could account for as much as 70% of the decline in prices. Chart 3COVID-19 Crushes Oil Demand Chinese Demand May Be Recovering News reports suggesting a tentative recovery from the COVID-19 demand shock are emerging in China, where the virus originated late last year. Weekly data indicate inventories in bellwether commodity markets – copper and steel – should begin to fall as demand slowly recovers. While encouraging, this may not be sufficient to offset the massive losses in copper demand that likely will be posted this year as a result of the lockdown imposed in China – and globally – to contain the spread of COVID-19. China accounts for ~ 50% of global demand and ~ 40% of refined copper supply.4 Global copper inventories will be useful indicators of the state of China’s recovery, as they will be sourced early as mining and refining operations are ramped up in response to increasing demand (Chart 4). Chart 4Copper Inventories Will Track Aggregate Demand Recovery Chart 5China Expected To Roll Infrastructure Investment Into 2020 China is set to roll a large portion of its multi-year 34-trillion-yuan (~ $5 trillion) investment plan into this year, to secure economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, our colleagues at BCA Research’s China Investment Service expect a near 10% increase in infrastructure investments this year, which would take such investment to 198 billion yuan (Chart 5). Local governments already have ramped up their expenditures, frontloading 1.2 trillion yuan of bond issuance in the first two months of 2020, a 53% jump versus the same period last year. This includes 1 trillion yuan of special government bonds (SPBs), which is expected to rise to 3-3.5 trillion yuan by the end of 2020, up 30% from 2019 levels. Additional funding channels likely will be opened to support public spending this year. Aggressive policy easing by the Peoples Bank of China (PBOC) in recent weeks, coupled with likely additional debt issuance and infrastructure spending this year will support revived aggregate demand in China. China’s policy responses will be additive to those of the US, where more than $2.2 trillion of fiscal stimulus could be deployed following Congressional agreement on a massive fiscal package that likely will be endorsed by the White House. For its part, the Fed has gone all-in on fighting the economic, liquidity and credit shocks unleashed by the COVID-19 pandemic.5 The EU also is expected to roll out large fiscal-stimulus packages, led by Germany, which is lining up a 150-billion-euro (~ $162 billion) bond issue this year, and a 156 billion-euro supplementary budget.6 Texas Railroad Commission To The Rescue? Another possible element of a global oil-production-regulation scheme emerged in recent days from America’s Lone Star state: The Texas Railroad Commission (RRC). Based on our modeling, 30% to 40% of the decline in oil prices this year is explained by the expectation of higher supply in the coming months (Chart 6).7 It is worthwhile remembering this is anticipatory, given statements and actions from KSA and Russia regarding steps both are taking to sharply increase future production. KSA, for example, provisionally chartered transport to move close to ~ 38mm barrels of crude to refining centers, 12mm barrels of which will be pointed toward the US.8 This was part of the Kingdom’s plan to boost supplies to the market to 12.3mm b/d beginning in April, most of which will come from higher production, augmented by storage drawdowns. If we get a rapprochement between OPEC 2.0’s leaders – KSA and Russia – and the coalition’s production-management scheme is rebuilt, oil prices could outperform other cyclical commodities post-COVID-19, as a large component of supply uncertainty is removed. However, before that can happen, markets will have to absorb the surge in exports from KSA that are being priced in for April and May. Chart 6Expected Supply Increase From KSA, Russia Accounts For 30-40% Of Oil Price Collapse Another possible element of a global oil-production-regulation scheme emerged in recent days from America’s Lone Star state: The Texas Railroad Commission (RRC). Texas regulators are openly debating the efficacy of re-establishing a long-dormant policy mandating the RRC pro-rate production. The idea was floated by outgoing RRC Commissioner Ryan Sitton, who earlier this month in an op-ed proposed KSA, Russia and the US could jointly agree to 10% reductions in output to stabilize global oil markets. This would expand the management of oil production and spare capacity globally, a profound shift from earlier eras when the RRC then OPEC took on that role.9 While RRC staff are studying the idea, Sitton’s proposal has not received the endorsement of fellow commissioners, particularly Wayne Christian, the chairman of the RRC.10 Christian’s argument against the scheme is similar to that of Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin’s: Both argue such schemes allow other producers to steal market share. Russian government officials continue to signal they are open to returning to the negotiating table with KSA. The Trump administration, however, sees potential in working with KSA and to stabilize markets. Earlier this month, the administration sent a “senior Energy Department official” to Riyadh to support the State Department and the US’s energy attache.11 For its part, Russian government officials continue to signal they are open to returning to the negotiating table with KSA. The “Russian position was never about triggering an oil prices fall. This is purely our Arab partners initiative,” according to a Reuters report quoting Andrei Belousov, Russia’s first deputy prime minister, in an interview with state news agency TASS. “Even oil companies who are obviously interested to maintain their markets, did not have a stance that the deal (OPEC+) should be dissolved.” According to Reuters, Russia proposed an extension of existing production cuts of 1.7mm b/d, perhaps to the end of this year, but “(our) Arab partners took a different stance.” 12 Investment Implications The big uncertainty at present is the extent of demand destruction that will be caused by COVID-19. At this point, the diplomatic maneuvering among states on the oil-supply side is a distraction. Any substantive action will require drawn-out negotiation, particularly to reconstitute and expand OPEC 2.0 to include the Texas RRC in the management of global oil production and spare capacity. In the here and now, markets are forcing sharp reductions in oil output, particularly in the US shales – e.g., Chevron announced it will be cutting capex and exploratory spending 20% this year on Tuesday.13 This is occurring throughout the industry in the US and around the world. Reuters compiled announcements by oil producers that have indicated they will cut an average 30% reduction in capex in response to the oil-price collapse.14 We are expecting US shale output to grow ~ 650k b/d this year, and to fall by ~ 1.35mm b/d next year on the back of the price collapse this year (Chart 7).15 We do not expect a resurgent shale-producing sector in the short- to medium-term, given the capital markets’ demonstrated aversion to funding this sector until it can demonstrate long-term profitability. The big uncertainty at present is the extent of demand destruction that will be caused by COVID-19, and the effectiveness of fiscal and monetary policy in supporting national economies during the pandemic. Equally important will be policy responsiveness post-COVID-19, and how quickly economies worldwide return to normal. Chart 7US Shale Output Will Fall Sharply Bottom Line: We expect a re-building of OPEC 2.0, with KSA and Russia restoring their production-management scheme before global storage facilities are filled and markets push prices below cash costs to force production to shut in. The revenue gains from this course of action far exceed any benefit derived from increasing production and prolonging a market-share war.16 Any agreement to include the Texas RRC will occur after demand is bottoming and moving up – i.e., once the outlook for demand is more stable – as happened when OPEC 2.0 was formed.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Fernando Crupi Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy FernandoC@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight The COVID-19 pandemic produced one undisputed winner: the environment. Limits on movement and factory shutdowns have massively reduced air pollution in countries hit by the pandemic early on (e.g. China and Italy). We expect similar declines elsewhere in Europe. This already is reflected in the ~ 30% drop in Carbon Emission Allowances (EUA) futures this year (Chart 8). Following the GFC, worldwide CO2 emissions dropped by 2.2%, but rapidly rebounded in 2010 – surpassing pre-crisis levels. We expect a similar recovery in global emissions as record stimulus measures kick in and normal traffic resumes post-COVID-19. Therefore, we are going long December 2020 ICE EUA futures. Base Metals: Neutral The LME base metal index is down 20% YTD. Downside risks remain large as lockdowns globally continue to intensify in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. These drastic measures also threaten mine operations for some metals. Copper supply is reportedly reduced in Peru and Chile. Nonetheless, weak economic growth along with a strong US dollar remain the dominant factors. Base metals prices gained from a lower USD on Tuesday, signaling market participants welcomed the Fed’s actions to relieve global liquidity fears. Still, it is too early to confirm these measures will be sufficient to circumvent further deterioration in the global economy. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold, silver, platinum, and palladium rose 12%, 15%, 14%, and 16% from the start of the week, recovering part of the sharp losses from the COVID-19 shock. Metals – especially Gold – were supported by the Fed’s resolve to provide much-needed liquidity to markets. Platinum and palladium were pushed higher following South Africa’s government decision to halt metal and mining operations as part of a 21-day nationwide shutdown to prevent the spread of the virus. Silver prices remain disconnected from their main drivers – i.e. safe-haven and industrial demand – and should rise along with gold once liquidity concerns dissipate (Chart 9). Ags/Softs:  Underweight After being under pressure for the last three sessions, CBOT May Corn futures rose this week, trading above $3.50/bu, as expectations of stronger demand for ethanol were revived by increasing oil prices. Wheat and beans also put in strong showings this week, as demand starts to lift. US grain exports are holding up relatively well versus the competition – chiefly the South America powerhouses Argentina and Brazil – as COVID-19 hampers their exports. Wheat futures remain firm on the back of stronger demand as consumers stockpile during the pandemic. Chart 8 Chart 9   Footnotes 1     The Chart of the Week shows prompt volatility at the end of last week, when it stood at a record 183.22%, and a sharply backwardated volatility forward curve. Implied volatility is a parameter in option-pricing models, which equates the premium paid for options with the principal factors determining its value (i.e., the underlying futures price, the option’s strike price, time to expiry, interest rates and the expected volatility, or standard deviation of expected returns on the underlying). All of the factors other than volatility can be observed in the underlying market and interest rate markets, leaving volatility to be determined using an iterative search. Please see Ryan, Bob and Tancred Lidderdale (2009), Short-Term Energy Outlook Supplement: Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty, published by the US Energy Information Administration, for a discussion of volatility as a market-cleared parameter. 2     We estimate our model both in (1) levels given that base metals, the US dollar and oil prices are cointegrated – i.e. these variable follow a common long-term stochastic trend – and (2) log-difference. We include the US dollar and 10-year treasury yields as explanatory variables. These series are closely linked to global growth trends, weakness in global economic activity is associated with a rising dollar and falling treasury yields. We only include treasury yields in the first difference model given that it is not cointegrated with oil and metal prices in levels. 3     Please see Oil prices as an indicator of global economic conditions, posted by Prof. Hamilton on his Econbrowser blog December 14, 2014. Our model uses monthly market inputs – non-oil commodities, the trade-weighted USD, US 10-year treasurys from January 2000 to February 2020, and the last daily close for March 2020. We extend Brian Prest’s 2018 model, which is based on Hamilton but uses monthly data instead of weekly data as in Hamilton. Please see Prest, C. Brian, 2018. "Explanation for the 2014 Oil Price Decline: Supply or Demand?" Energy Economics 74, 63-75. 4    Please see China steel, copper inventories dip as demand recovers from virus and Rupture of copper demand to fuel surplus as industry hit by virus, published March 20 and March 23, 2020, by reuters.com. 5     For an in-depth discussion, please see Life At The Zero Bound published March 24, 2020, by BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see Germany expected to announce fiscal stimulus as European death toll rises published by thehill.com March 23, 2020. 7     We estimate the share of the price collapse explained by the supply shock using the residuals from our demand-only Brent price model presented in Chart 3. The difference between actual Brent prices and our demand-only estimates captures oil-specific factors unexplained by global economic growth – mainly supply dynamics. 8    Please see Saudi provisionally charters 19 supertankers, six to U.S. as global oil price war heats up published by reuters.com March 11, 2020. 9    Please see Texas regulator considers oil output cuts for the first time in decades published by worldoil.com on March 20, 2020. We discussed the historic role of the RCC during the 2014-16 OPEC-led market-share war in End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East, a Special Report published April 9, 2014, with BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy. We noted, “In March of 1972, the (RRC) effectively relinquished control of Texas oil production, when it allowed wells in the state to produce at 100% of their capacity. This signaled the exhaustion of U.S. spare capacity – production no longer had to be pro-rated to maintain prices above marginal costs – and the ascendance OPEC to global prominence in the oil market.” 10   Please see Texas Railroad Commission chairman opposes OPEC-style oil production cuts published by S&P Global Platts March 20, 2020. 11    Please see U.S. to send envoy to Saudi Arabia; Texas suggests oil output cuts published by reuters.com March 20, 2020. 12    Please see Russia: Gulf nations, not us, to blame for oil prices fall -TASS published by reuters.com March 22, 2020. 13   Please see Chevron cuts spending by $4 billion, suspends share buybacks published by worldoil.com March 24, 2020. 14   Please see Factbox: Global oil, gas producers cut spending after crude price crash, published by reuters.com March 23, 2020. Refiners also are cutting runs – particularly in the US and Europe – in the wake of collapsing demand for gasoline and distillates (jet, diesel and marine fuels), as S&P Global Platts reported March 23, 2020: Refinery margin tracker: Global refining margins take a severe hit on falling gasoline demand. 15   This extends to oil-services companies as well, which are anticipating a deeper crash in their businesses than occurred in the 2014-16 market-share war. Please see Shale service leaders warn of a bigger crash this time around published by worldoil.com March 24, 2020. 16   We argued this outcome was more likely than not – given the economic and welfare stakes – in last week’s report, KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in Summary of Closed Trades

Feature We closed our short position in EM equities last week but still maintain our short recommendation on EM currencies. Going forward we will be looking for signs of a durable bottom in risk assets. The clash between forthcoming massive economic stimulus around the world and the unprecedented plunge in global economic activity has generated a great deal of uncertainty over the magnitude and duration of the global recession. In turn, enormous ambiguity continues to produce extreme gyrations in financial markets. The unparalleled drop in the level of business activity and uncertainty over the length of lockdowns make it impossible to determine how much stimulus is required to produce a V-shaped recovery. Notably, all these stimuli will have an effect on the real economy with a lag. In the meantime, the real economy will remain in an air pocket. Overall, financial markets will remain very volatile as they try to recalibrate the magnitude and duration of recession as well as the speed of recovery. Chart 1China: Level Of Business Activity Is Still Lower Than A Year Ago Even in China, where the authorities have been stimulating and trying hard to restart the economy following lockdowns, the level of business activity remains below last year’s levels. In particular, Chart 1 illustrates that residential floor space sold in Shanghai in the past couple of weeks remains 60% lower than a year ago. This reveals how difficult it is to reboot discretionary consumer spending and business investment following a negative income shock. Overall, financial markets will remain very volatile as they try to recalibrate the magnitude and duration of recession as well as the speed of recovery. Such heightened uncertainty warrants a higher risk premium. Given financial markets are already discounting a lot of bad news, incoming economic data will be of little use. In our opinion, investors can only rely on various market indicators to gauge the direction of risk assets. Given financial markets are already discounting a lot of bad news, incoming economic data will be of little use. In our opinion, investors can only rely on various market indicators to gauge the direction of risk assets. Review Of Indicators The following market-based indicators lead us to believe that the selloff is in a late-stage, but not over. Chart 2More Downside In This Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency Ratio Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven1 currency ratio is in free fall but has not reached the level that marked its 2011 and 2015 troughs (Chart 2). It is still well above its 2008 level.  Odds are that this indicator will drop to 2011 and 2015 levels before staging a major recovery. EM share prices, commodities and global cyclical stocks correlate closely with this ratio. A further drop in Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio will be consistent with more downside in EM equities, resource prices and global cyclicals. The global stock-to-US 30-year bond ratio has crashed but is still above its 2008 trough (Chart 3). Given this global recession is worse than the one in 2008, it is reasonable to expect the ratio to drop to its 2008 level before recovering. The gold-to-US bonds ratio2 has not yet broken out of its rising channel (Chart 4). Only a decisive breakout above the upper boundary of this channel will confirm a sustainable rally in reflation plays. Chart 3Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio: More Downside Is Likely Chart 4The Gold-To-Bond Ratio Is Not Yet Confirming The Reflation Trade Meanwhile, the industrial metals-to-gold ratio has plunged below its 2008 and 2015/16 lows (Chart 5). This qualifies as a structural regime change in this indicator. Odds are that this ratio will continue to fall, heralding further weakness in global cyclicals in general and EM risk assets in particular.   The relative performance of non-financial Swiss stocks versus Swedish non-financials seems to have broken below 2002 and 2008 lows The relative performance of non-financial Swiss stocks versus Swedish non-financials seems to have broken below 2002 and 2008 lows (Chart 6). Such a breakdown typically entails additional decline. The latter will be consistent with more weakness in global cyclicals versus defensives. Chart 5A Noteworthy Breakdown Chart 6Cyclicals Vs Defensives Interestingly, Chinese equity indexes have dropped less than their global and EM peers. Nevertheless, cyclical sectors within the Chinese equity universe are exhibiting very disturbing chart patterns. Chinese bank stocks appear to be in a genuine downtrend, with no immediate support (Chart 7, top panel). Property developers in the onshore A-share market have hit key resistance levels and appear to be vulnerable to the downside (Chart 7, middle panel). Finally, Chinese investable small-cap stocks have broken down, and their path of least resistance is down (Chart 7, bottom panel). Overall, the relative resilience of Chinese share prices has been due to tech and “new economy” stocks. The rest of Chinese equities have been quite week in absolute terms. Finally, the net aggregate long position in US equity futures by asset managers and leveraged funds as of March 17 was still above its 2011 and 2016 lows (Chart 8).  It is reasonable to expect that the ultimate capitulation in US stocks will be consistent with a lower reading of this indicator. Chart 7Weak Internals Of Chinese Equity Markets Chart 8No Capitulation Among Investors In US Equity Futures     Bottom Line: The recent rebound in EM risk assets is unlikely to be sustainable. Several important indicators are not confirming a durable rally in reflation plays. Investment Strategy Even though EM equities have become cheap and very oversold as we discussed last week, odds are that the bear market in EM risk assets and currencies is not yet over. It might be too late to sell EM stocks, but also too risky to buy them aggressively. Chart 9EM Corporate Credit And Domestic Bonds: A Bear Market, Not A Correction Provided the selloff in EM fixed-income markets commenced only a couple of weeks ago, it will likely persist as investors facing losses are forced to further trim their positions (Chart I-9). We continue to recommend staying put on EM fixed-income markets. As EM US dollar and local currency bond yields rise, EM share prices will struggle. Finally, EM currencies remain vulnerable against the greenback. We are maintaining our short in a basket of the following EM currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW. Reshuffling EM Equity Country Allocation We are making the following changes within a dedicated EM equity portfolio: Upgrading Peru from neutral to overweight, and Colombia from underweight to neutral. Both bourses have underperformed substantially and warrant a one-notch upgrade. Peru will - on the margin - benefit from relative resilience in gold and silver prices. The collapse in Colombia’s relative equity performance is advanced. While we are not bullish on oil prices, we are protecting our gains on the underweight Colombian stocks allocation by moving it to neutral. Reiterating our underweight allocations in both Indonesian and Philippine equities. Both bourses are breaking down relative to the EM benchmark (Chart I-10). More downside is in the cards. Readers can click here to access our latest fundamental analysis on financial markets in Indonesia and the Philippines.  Maintaining our overweight positions in Korean and Thai equities. Underperformance in both bourses relative to the EM benchmark is at a late stage. We expect the relative performance of these markets versus the overall EM equity index to find a support close to current levels (Chart I-11). Chart 10Continue Underweighting Indonesian And Philippines Equities Chart 11Overweight Korean And Thai Stocks Within The EM Universe Downgrading UAE from overweight to underweight. We have been bearish on oil prices, but the speed of the collapse in crude prices has wreaked havoc on Gulf equity markets. Similarly, the speed of decline in oil prices has caused considerable tremors in Mexican and Russian financial markets. Our overweight position in Russian equities is now back to its breakeven level, but the one in Mexican stocks is deep under water. We are reiterating our overweight in both bourses but have much lower conviction on Mexican stocks versus Russian ones. We will publish an updated analysis on Mexico in the near term. Finally, we have been and remain neutral on the following equity markets relative to the EM benchmark: China, Taiwan, India, Malaysia, Brazil and Chile. We have been negative on Brazil but have not formally downgraded it to underweight. Among our underweights are also Turkey, South Africa and Hong Kong domestic stocks. The complete list of our equity recommendations is available on page 8. Our fixed-income and currencies recommendations are available on page 9 (all of our recommendations are always enclosed at the end of our Weekly Reports and are available on our Website as well).   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, IDR, RUB, CLP, MXN & ZAR total return indices relative to the average of CHF & JPY total returns. 2   It is calculated by dividing gold prices by total return on 10-year US government bonds. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights In contrast to the low-inflation experience of the euro area and other developed market countries over the past several years, the structural backdrop has and will continue to favor inflation in central European (CE) economies. Over the coming 6-12 months, this secular rise in inflation will be interrupted. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced policymakers to cause a “sudden stop” in economic activity in most major countries around the world, implying that inflation is set to trend lower this year. At the same time, the crisis is also spurring a policy response that is likely to reinforce the inflationary structural dynamics in these economies over the medium-term. Central European currencies are likely to depreciate further versus the euro and US dollar this year, but will appreciate versus other EM currencies. Regional equity investors should underweight CE stock markets versus the euro area, but overweight them versus an EM equity benchmark. Feature BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy (EMS) team has written periodically about Central European (CE) economies.1 In these reports, our overreaching theme for CE economies has been that labor shortages are causing strong wage growth, which is exerting inflationary pressures on domestic economies. In this Special Report we briefly review the basis for this theme, and detail how the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to temporarily interrupt structurally rising central European inflation. We conclude with the implications for PLN, CZK, and HUF, versus both emerging market currencies and the euro, as well as the attendant implications for central European fixed-income and equity markets. The Structural Forces Stoking Central European Inflation: A Brief Review In contrast to the low-inflation experience of the euro area and other developed market countries, the structural trend favors inflation in central European (CE) economies. Chart I-1 shows that this trend has already been manifesting itself; various measures of consumer price inflation have been rising in Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, the three main CEs of focus for BCA’s EMS team. Rising unit labor costs arising from labor shortages have been driving the inflationary backdrop, as evidenced by the following: Chart I-1Inflationary Pressures Are Rising Across Central Europe Chart I-2Scarcity Of Labor In CE ##br##And Germany     First, our labor shortage proxy – calculated as number of job vacancies divided by the number of unemployed people – remains elevated in all CE and continues rising in the Czech Republic and Hungary, while slightly rolling over in Poland (Chart I-2). Meanwhile, Germany’s labor shortage proxy also is elevated and rising (see discussion below). A breakdown of this proxy’s components reveals that the number of job vacancies continues to climb, while the number of unemployed people continues falling (Chart I-3A & I-3B). Chart I-3AA Breakdown Of Our Labor Shortage Proxy Chart I-3BA Breakdown Of Our Labor Shortage Proxy Second, wage growth, overall and manufacturing, has been rising faster than productivity growth. This implies that unit labor costs have been rising acutely in these economies (Chart I-4). Third, firms are more like to pass on cost increases to consumers when profit margins are lower, meaning that rising wages have been likely been stoking consumer price inflation over the past 5 years. Fourth, German outsourcing has anecdotally been noted as being an important driver of high demand for labor in the manufacturing hubs of Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic, which is consistent with the elevated labor shortage proxy for Germany noted above. While it is difficult to approximate the exact amount of outsourcing activity that is occurring between Germany and CE economies, we offer a few perspectives below: Intra-European trade between Germany and CE has swelled over the past two decades. Rising bilateral trade is consistent with outsourcing, in that it reflects intermediate goods being exported to CE for production and subsequently imported back into Germany for final assembly. Low labor costs in CE appear to have led firms to outsource their production from Germany to CE economies. Chart I-5, top panel, shows that production volumes have been rising at much quicker pace in CE than in Germany over the past decade, in response to a large CE labor cost advantage over Germany (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Chart I-4Labor Shortages = Rising Unit Labor Costs Chart I-5Cheap Labor = Job Outsourcing Manufacturing employment over the past decade has also grown considerably quicker in CE economies than in Germany, which signifies that increased CE production volumes are being driven by rising labor inputs, not just increased capital. Finally, CE withstood quite well the manufacturing recession in Germany in 2019. Bottom Line: Employment and income growth across the CE had been robust until now. COVID-19: A Near-Term Deflationary Event While the secular outlook for CE economies is inflationary, the opposite is true for the coming 6-12 months. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a “sudden stop” in economic activity in most major countries around the world, as policymakers implement strict physical distancing measures to try and slow the spread of the disease and avoid a collapse in their respective health care systems. Aggressive and swift measures have been taken across CE, and more quickly than in some euro area countries. This is positive in the sense that it should shorten the period of time that aggressive control measures should be required, but negative in the sense that it will also lead to a more acute domestic shock to the economy in the near term. This, in turn, implies that inflation is set to trend lower for a time, as Chart I-6 underscores that core inflation in CE economies is fairly reliably correlated with lagged growth in final demand. In addition, Chart I-7 highlights that core inflation in CE economies is also fairly correlated with the German manufacturing PMI, underscoring that the deflationary shock in the euro area economy from physical distancing measures is also likely to reverberate back to central Europe. Chart I-6COVID-19 Shock Will Hit Final Demand And Inflation Chart I-7German Manufacturing Versus ##br##CE Inflation However, over the medium-term, the COVID-19 pandemic has also spurred a policy response that is likely to reinforce the inflationary structural dynamics in these economies. It also occurred at a moment of relative cyclical strength, which should limit the duration of the disinflation/deflationary episode for CE economies: Monetary policy in CE economies has been ultra-loose over the past few years, and is set to remain so for the coming 6-12 months (at a minimum). This ultra-loose policy has depressed lending and mortgage rates (Chart I-8), and had already aggressively stimulated manufacturing and construction activity. Owing to the severity of the shock, policymakers are likely to lag a recovery in economic activity once physical distancing measures are removed, suggesting that interest rates will create incentives to bring forward aggregate demand even more intensely than before the pandemic. Chart I-8Policy In CE is Ultra Accommodative On the fiscal front, public debt dynamics in CE countries are not precarious. Namely, interest rates at below nominal growth, which satisfies a pre-condition of public debt sustainability. This leeway will allow policymakers to expand fiscal spending aggressively. Critically, the average household credit to GDP within CE is amongst the lowest in EM and DM economies (Chart I-9). As such, household debt deflation is not a risk, meaning that CE likely faces an “income statement” rather than a “balance sheet” recession. This implies that aggregate demand will recover faster in central Europe than in other, debt-laden economies. Economic momentum was stronger in CE economies going into the crisis, as evidenced by elevated final demand in the region. This is corroborated by strong money and credit growth in the region, as well as positive and rising output gaps (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Household Leverage is Low... Chart I-10...Which Entices Strong Credit Growth Bottom Line: Despite the imminent deflationary risk, ultra-accommodative polices alongside labor shortages will keep final demand more resilient in CE. This will lead most likely to a faster recovery in domestic growth indicators. Investment Implications On the currency front, there are several important factors to consider concerning the performance of CE currencies versus the euro and EM currencies respectively. Judging the likely direction of CE currencies is crucial, as that assessment heavily influences our fixed-income and equity recommendations. First, it is noteworthy that CE currencies have been breaking down versus the euro since the COVID-19 outbreak (Chart I-11). We see the following factors driving CE currency pairs versus the euro in the near term: European and foreign investor ownership of CE local currency bonds and equities is high, especially in Poland and Hungary (Chart I-12). As such, these markets are at risk of foreign outflows from European and foreign investors. Chart I-11CE Currencies Are Breaking ##br##Down Chart I-12Foreign Holding Of Polish And Hungarian Assets The global risk-off environment makes these local markets unfavorable to foreign investors. External debt levels are high across the region, particularly for non-financial corporates and banks (Chart I-13). Even though intra EU exports cover more than half of CE external debt, collapsing exports over the next few months will temporarily put a strain on foreign debtors. As of December 2019, exports of Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic to EU member were contracting. Chart I-13External Debt Is High In CE Finally, CE foreign exchange valuations based on unit labor costs are not cheap (Chart I-14). On the other hand, the euro is comparably cheap and will contribute to a faster recovery in German exports. In hand, demand for German goods are artificially supported by ultra-accommodative monetary policy from the ECB. Chart I-14CE Currencies Are Not Cheap Second, CE economies are still viewed by many investors as developing economies, and thus their currencies have been dragged down by the sharp selloff in EM FX over the past few weeks. Relative to other EM currencies, however, the downside risk facing CE currencies over the coming 6-12 months is much lower: Chart I-15CE Currencies Have Low Correlation With Commodities CE currencies exhibit lower correlation with commodity prices (Chart I-15). The risk of an outright deflationary spiral in CE is much less likely than in other EMs, especially in Poland and Hungary (see discussion above). Balance of payment dynamics remain supportive for CE currencies relative to other EMs. In particular, positive trade balances have historically been an important supporting factor for these crosses against both the US dollar and euro in the medium term. More importantly, foreign portfolio flows have been weak over the past few years, especially in Poland and Hungary. Also, ownership of local currency government bonds in both countries has been lower than in many other EM markets. Considering the above, and BCA’s EMS team’s existing positioning, we recommend the following over the coming 6-12 months: Currencies and Fixed Income Markets: Portfolio outflows and a comparatively cheap euro warrant CE currency depreciation versus both the euro and US dollar. Yet, better balance of payments dynamics and strong domestic fundamentals warrant CE currencies to appreciate versus EM currencies. Within CE, we continue to favor the CZK versus the PLN and HUF. Czech rates have risen above both Polish and Hungarian rates, which will support the CZK. Further, Polish and Hungarian policies have been behind the curve relative to Czech ones in regard to inflation. That said, we recommend overweighting CE local currency government versus EM GBI local currency bond benchmark due to favorable currency movements in CE versus EM. For fixed income investors, Polish and Hungarian local currency government spreads versus German bunds are at risk of widening (Chart I-16). Meanwhile, Czech rates have widened already considerably versus German bunds. Equity Markets: BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team continues to recommend that investors underweight CE equities relative to a euro area equity benchmark. Historically, CE equities have underperformed the euro area whenever EM equities underperformed DM equities (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Government Bond ##br##Spreads Chart I-17Continue To Underweight CE Equities Vs. Euro Area Within an EM equity portfolio, we recommend overweighting CE equities relative to the EM benchmark. Currency trends are critical for relative performance of equities. We expect CE currencies to appreciate versus EMs currencies, even though they will depreciate versus the euro. Over the medium to longer run, the structurally inflationary forces in CE economies that we have noted will return, arguing from a valuation perspective that the long-term risk to CE currencies is to the downside versus DM currencies. However, over the coming 6-12 months the pandemic, the response of policymakers, and its aftermath will be the primary driver of CE currencies. We will update investors on changes to our outlook for central Europe as the situation evolves, and as the structural forces that we have described draw nearer. Stay tuned!   Andrija Vesic, Associate Editor Emerging Markets Strategy andrijav@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Central Europe: Beware Of An Inflation Outbreak," dated June 21, 2017, Weekly Report "Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe" dated October 31, 2019, Weekly Report "The RMB: Depreciation Time?" May 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com

Special Report

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

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