Global

Special Report

Highlights Our COVID Unrest Index reveals that Turkey, the Philippines, Brazil, and South Africa are the major emerging markets most at risk of significant social unrest. China, Russia, Thailand, and Malaysia are the least at risk – in the short run. Stay tactically overweight developed market equities relative to emerging markets. Go tactically short a basket of “EM Strongmen” currencies relative to the EM currency benchmark. Short the rand as well. Feature Chart 1Stimulus-Fueled Markets Ignore Reality With global fiscal stimulus now estimated at 7% of GDP, and central banks in full debt monetization mode, the S&P 500 is at 2940 and rallying toward 3000. It is not only largely ignoring the global pandemic and recession. It is as if the trade war never occurred, China is not shrinking, and WTI crude oil prices have never gone negative (Chart 1). In recent reports we have argued that “geopolitics is the next shoe to drop” – specifically that President Trump’s electoral challenges and the vulnerability of America’s enemies make for a volatile combination. But there are also more mundane geopolitical consequences of the recession that asset allocators must worry about. Such as government change and regime failure. COVID-19 and government lockdowns have exacted a heavy economic toll on households and political systems now face heightened risk of unrest. In many cases emerging market countries were already vulnerable, having witnessed outbreaks of civil unrest in 2019. Fear of contracting the virus, plus various isolation measures, will tend to suppress street movements in the near term. This year’s “May Day” protests will be minor compared to what we will see in coming years. But significant unrest will sprout as the containment measures are relaxed and yet economic problems linger. And bear in mind that the biggest bouts of unrest in the wake of the 2008 crisis did not occur until 2011-13. In this report we introduce our “COVID Unrest Index” for emerging economies, which shows that Turkey, the Philippines, Brazil, and South Africa face substantial unrest that can trigger or follow upon market riots. Introducing The COVID Unrest Index At any point in time, social and political instability depends on economic conditions such as unemployment and inflation, structural problems such as inequality, and governance issues such as corruption. In the post-COVID recessionary environment, additional factors such as health care capacity also carry weight. To identify markets that are most likely to face unrest, we created a COVID Unrest Index (Table 1). The overall ranking is determined by five factors: Table 1Our COVID-19 Social Unrest Index Initial Economic Conditions: A proxy for economic policy’s ability to respond to the crisis. This factor includes the fiscal balance and sovereign debt – which determine "fiscal space" – as well as the current account balance, public foreign currency debt as a percent of GDP, foreign debt obligations as a percent of exports, and foreign funding requirements as a percent of foreign currency reserves. Health Capacity And Vulnerability: A proxy for both a population’s vulnerability to COVID and its health care capabilities. Vulnerability to the pandemic is captured by COVID-19 deaths per million, share of the population over the age of 65, and likelihood of dying from an infectious disease. Health infrastructure is measured by life expectancy at age 60 and health expenditure per capita. Economic Vulnerability To Pandemic: A proxy for the magnitude of the COVID-specific shock to the individual economy. This factor takes into account a country’s dependence on revenue from tourism and its dependence on inflows from remittances. Household Grievances: A proxy for economic hardship faced by households, captured by the GINI index, which measures income inequality, and the “misery index,” which consists of the sum of inflation and unemployment. Governance: A proxy the captures the quality of governance from the World Bank’s World Governance Indicators – specifically the ability to participate in selecting government, likelihood of political instability or politically-motivated violence, and perceptions of corruption. The country ranking for the COVID Unrest Index is constructed by first standardizing the variables, then transforming them such that higher readings are associated with more favorable conditions. Finally, the five factors are averaged for each country to produce individual scores. Turkey: A Shambles On Europe’s Doorstep Turkey is the most likely to face mass discontent in the near future. It has all the ingredients for unrest: poor standing across all factors and the weakest governance score. From an economic standpoint, its foreign currency reserves are critically low while its foreign debt obligations are relatively elevated (Chart 2). This spells trouble for the lira, which will only further add to the grievances of households already burdened by a high misery index. Chart 2AEmerging Markets Face Debt Troubles Even With The Fed’s Help Chart 2BEmerging Markets Face Debt Troubles Even With The Fed’s Help President Erdogan has rejected suggestions of aid from the IMF. Fearing a revival of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), especially in the wake of his party’s losses in the 2019 municipal elections, he has banned cities that are run by the CHP from raising funds toward virus response efforts. This right is reserved only for cities run by his Justice and Development Party (AKP). Given that Erdogan does not face reelection until 2023, the move to suppress the opposition reflects general weakness and portends a long period of suppression and political conflict. Erdogan’s handling of the outbreak has also seen its share of failures. While he has opted for only a partial lockdown, a 48-hour full lockdown was announced on April 10 only hours in advance, resulting in crowds of people rushing to purchase necessities. Interior minister Suleyman Soylu tried to resign, but was prevented by Erdogan, breeding speculation about Soylu’s motives. Soylu may have sought to distance himself from the president’s handling of the crisis to preserve his image as a potential successor to the president, rivaling Erdogan’s son-in-law, Finance Minister Berat Albayrak. The point is that Erdogan is already facing greater political competition. Former ally and minister of foreign affairs and economy Ali Babacan recently launched a new party, the Democracy and Progress Party (DEVA). He has criticized the government’s stimulus package and decision to hold back on requesting IMF aid. Erdogan is also challenged by his former prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who broke away from the AKP to form his own Future Party late last year. The obvious risk to Erdogan is that these opposition groups create a viable political alternative that voters can flock to – and they could form a united front amid national economic collapse. Brazil and South Africa have large twin deficits. Erdogan’s response, repeatedly, has been to harden his stance and double down on populist and unorthodox policies. These have not helped his popular standing, as we have chronicled over the past several years. At home his policies are generating excessive money supply and a large budget deficit (Chart 3). Abroad he has gotten the military more deeply involved in Syria, Libya, and maritime conflicts. The result is stagflation with the potential for negative political surprises both at home and abroad. Chart 3Twin Deficits Flash Red For Emerging Markets Chart 4Turkish Political Risk Has Room To Rise Our GeoRisk Indicator for Turkey shows that risks are rising as the lira falls relative to its underlying economic fundamentals (Chart 4). But it will fall further from here. Positive signs would be accepting IMF aid, cutting off the foreign adventures, selling off government assets, and restoring fiscal and monetary orthodoxy. But it is just as likely that Erdogan resorts to even more desperate moves, including a greater confrontation with Greece and Europe by encouraging more refugee flow-through into Europe. Erdogan has always been more popular than his Justice and Development Party, but after ruling since 2003, and now facing a nationwide crisis, his rule is increasingly in jeopardy. His scramble to survive the election in 2023 will be all the more dangerous to governance. Bottom Line: We booked gains on our short lira trade earlier this year but the fundamental case for the short remains intact, so we include it in our short “EM Strongmen” currency basket discussed at the end of this report. The Philippines: Yes, Governance Matters The Philippines is next at risk of instability. It is particularly vulnerable to a pandemic recession due to its dependence on remittance inflows and tourism for foreign currency (Chart 5) as well as its poor health infrastructure (Chart 6). While it is not in a vulnerable position in terms of foreign currency obligations, its double deficit (see Chart 3) means that significant stimulus will come at the expense of the currency. Chart 5Pandemics Hurt Tourism, Recessions Hurt Remittances Chart 6AEmerging Markets Face COVID-19 Without Developed Market Health Systems Chart 6BEmerging Markets Face COVID-19 Without Developed Market Health Systems President Rodrigo Duterte remains extremely popular even though the Philippines is suffering one of the worst outbreaks in Asia. Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia has resigned from his post due to disagreement over containment measures. Pernia’s vision of a partial lockdown contrasted with Duterte’s militarized containment approach – which includes the granting of extraordinary emergency powers.1 Meanwhile the lockdowns imposed on the capital and southern Luzon provinces will remain in place until at least May 15 after which Duterte indicated it will be gradually lifted. While Duterte will in all likelihood remain in power until the end of his term in 2022, he is using his popularity to secure a preferred successor. He is less capable of getting through a constitutional amendment that extends presidential term limits – he has the votes in Congress, but a popular referendum is not a sure bet given the economic crisis. He is widely believed to be grooming his daughter Sara or former aide Senator Bong Go for the presidential post, with speculation that he may run as vice president on the same ticket. Turkey and the Philippines have poor governance, putting them alongside international rogue states. Any hit to his popularity that upends his succession plan poses existential risks to Duterte as he has racked up many influential enemies and could face criminal charges if an opposing administration succeeds him. This risk will likely induce him to tighten control further in an attempt to maintain order and crack down on dissent. Autocratic moves will weigh on the Philippines’ governance score which is already among the poorest in our pool of emerging countries (Chart 7). Chart 7Governance Matters For Investors Over The Long Run Chart 8Duterte Signaled Top In Philippine Equity Outperformance Does governance matter? Yes, at least in the case of strongmen in regimes with weak institutions. Look at Philippine equities relative to emerging market equities since Duterte first rose onto the scene, prompting us to go short (Chart 8). Duterte obliterated the country’s current account surplus just as we expected and its currency has suffered as a result. For now, the Philippines’ misery index is not yet at a level that strongly implies widespread unrest (Chart 9), but the general context does, especially if constitutional maneuvers backfire. At 4% of GDP, the proposed COVID-19 stimulus package comes on top of the fact that Duterte’s “build, build, build” infrastructure plan already required massive fiscal spending. But the weak currency and higher unemployment will increase the misery index and chip away at the president’s popularity. If the people turn against Duterte, they will remove him in a “people power” movement, as with previous leaders. Chart 9Inequality, Unemployment, And Inflation Are A Deadly Brew The Philippines is also highly vulnerable to the emerging cold war between the US and China. Administrations are now flagrantly aligned with one great power or the other. This means that foreign meddling should be expected. Duterte could get Chinese assistance, which erodes Philippine sovereignty and its security alliance with the United States, or he could eventually suffer from anti-Chinese sentiment, which invites Chinese pressure tactics. Either course will inject a risk premium over the long run. The US is popular in the Philippines, especially with the military, and overt Chinese sponsorship will eventually trigger a backlash. Bottom Line: The lack of legislative or popular constraints on Duterte makes it more likely that he will undertake autocratic moves to stay in power – economic orthodoxy will suffer as a result. The Philippines will also see a sharp increase in policy uncertainty directly as a consequence of the secular rise in US-China tensions in the coming months and years. Brazil: Will Bolsonaro Become A Kamikaze Reformer? Chart 10Bolsonaro’s Handling Of Pandemic Gets Panned In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro’s “economy first” approach and dismissal of the pandemic as a “little flu” has not improved his popularity (Chart 10). His approval rating is languishing in the 30% range, lower than all modern presidents save the interim government of Michel Temer in the previous episode of the country’s ongoing national political crisis. The pandemic, and Bolsonaro’s response, have fractured his cabinet and precipitated a new episode in the crisis. The clash between the president and the country’s state governors and national health officials, who enjoy popular support, has led to the dismissal of Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta and the resignation of the popular Justice Minister Sergio Moro. We have highlighted Moro as a linchpin of Bolsonaro’s anti-corruption credibility and hence one of the three pillars of his political capital. This pillar is now cracking, making Bolsonaro’s administration less capable going forward. Bolsonaro’s firing of the head of the federal police, Mauricio Valeixo, the catalyst for Moro’s resignation, has led to a Supreme Court authorization for an investigation into whether Valeixo’s dismissal can be attributed to corruption or obstruction of justice. A guilty verdict could force Congress to take up impeachment, an issue on which Brazilians are split. Earlier this week the president was forced to withdraw the appointment of Alexandre Ramagem – a Bolsonaro family friend – as the new head of the federal police after a minister of the supreme federal court blocked the appointment due to his close personal relationship with the president. Brazil’s structural reform and fiscal discipline are on the backburner given the need for massive emergency spending to shore up GDP growth. Reforms are giving way to the “Pro-Brazil Plan,” which seeks to restore the economy through investments in infrastructure. The absence of the economy minister, Paulo Guedes, from the unveiling of this plan has led to speculation over Guedes’ future. Guedes is the key reformer in Bolsonaro’s cabinet and as important for the administration’s economic credibility as Moro was for its anti-corruption credibility. Brazil’s macro context is egregious. Its large public debt load – mostly denominated in local currency – raises the odds that the central bank will monetize the debt at the expense of the exchange rate, which has already weakened since the beginning of the year. Moreover, Brazil’s ability to pay near term debt service obligations is in a precarious position as the pullback in export revenues will weigh on its ability to service debt (see Chart 2). Our Emerging Markets Strategy estimates that Brazil is spending 16% of GDP on fiscal measures that will push gross public debt-to-GDP ratio well above 100% by the end of 2020 (Chart 11). Chart 11Highly Indebted Emerging Markets Have Limited Fiscal Room For Maneuver Given that Brazil already suffers from a relatively elevated misery index (see Chart 9), these macro challenges will translate into greater pain for Brazilian households and hence a political backlash down the road. The three pillars of Bolsonaro’s political capital have cracked: order, anti-corruption, and structural reform. The hope for investors interested in Brazil now rests on Bolsonaro becoming a kamikaze reformer. That is, after the immediate crisis subsides, his low popularity may force him to try painful structural reforms that no leader with political aspirations would attempt. So far he is taking the populist route of short-term measures to try to stay in power. Chart 12Bolsonaro's Meltdown Portends Melt-Up In Brazilian Political Risk Another sign of worsening governance is that military influence in civilian politics is partially reviving. This element of the country’s recent political turmoil has flown under the radar but will become more prominent if the administration falls apart and the only officials with sufficient credibility to fill the vacuum are military officials such as Vice President Hamilton Mourão. Financial markets may force leaders to make tough decisions to stave off a debt crisis, but risk assets will sell in the meantime as the lid on the country’s political risk has blown off and currency depreciation is the most readiest way to boost nominal GDP growth. Our political risk gauge will continue spiking – this reflects currency weakness relative to fundamentals (Chart 12). Bottom Line: Last fall we argued that Brazil was “just above stall speed” and that we would give the Bolsonaro administration the benefit of the doubt if it maintained three pillars of political capital: civil order, corruption crackdown, and structural reform. All three are collapsing amid the current crisis. As yet there is no sign that Bolsonaro is taking the “kamikaze reform” approach – that may be a positive catalyst but would require his administration to break down further. South Africa: Quantitative Easing Comes To EM South Africa faces an 8%-10% contraction in growth for 2020 and President Cyril Ramaphosa has overseen a large monetary and fiscal stimulus. The South African Reserve Bank has committed to quantitative easing in a bid to boost liquidity in the local financial market. South Africa’s highly leveraged households and those who mostly participate in the formal economy will find relief in lower debt-servicing costs and better access to credit. However, the large informal economy, and the rising number of unemployed, will not reap the same benefit from accommodative measures. This last group will benefit more from fiscal policy measures, such as social grants to low-income households. Ramaphosa recently announced a fiscal spending package totaling R500 billion, or 10% of GDP. Social grants to the poor and unemployed are all set to increase, which should help reduce the economic burden low-income households will face over the short term. The problem is that South Africa is extremely vulnerable to this crisis. Well before COVID the country suffered from low growth, persistently high unemployment, rising debt levels, and an increasing cost of social grants. The pandemic has increased dependency on these grants. South Africa is the most unequal society in the world (Chart 9 above) and runs large twin deficits on its fiscal and current accounts (see Chart 3). As the government’s financing needs rise, its ability to keep providing to low-income households will diminish. Yet the ruling African National Congress (ANC) is required to keep up social payments to stave off discontent and maintain its voter base – which consists of poor, mostly rural voters. The ANC must decide whether to implement stricter austerity measures after the immediate crisis to contain the fiscal fallout, which will bring unrest forward, or continue on an unsustainable path and face a market revolt. The latter option is clear from the decision to embrace quantitative easing, which further undermines the currency. Political pressure is mostly stemming from the left-wing – the Economic Freedom Fighters – which prevents Ramaphosa from taking a hard line on economic and fiscal policy. Bottom Line: There have been isolated protests across the country against the government’s draconian lockdown, and social grievances have the potential to boil over in the coming years given the long rule of the ANC and the country’s dire economic straits. Investment Implications It is too soon to buy into risky emerging market assets at a time when a deep recession is spreading across the world, extreme uncertainty persists over the COVID-19 pandemic, and the political and geopolitical fallout is transparently negative for major emerging markets. Remain overweight developed market equities relative to emerging market equities, at least over a tactical (three-to-six month) time horizon. Emerging market losers are countries with poor macro fundamentals, weak health care systems, specific competitive disadvantages during a global pandemic, high levels of inflation and unemployment, and ineffective social and political institutions. Turkey, the Philippines, and Brazil rank high on our list both because of their problems and because they are major markets. Chart 13Short Our 'EM Strongman' Currency Basket Not coincidentally these countries each have “strongman” leaders who have pursued unorthodox polices and ridden roughshod over institutional checks and balances. In each case, the leader is doubling down on populism while exacerbating structural weaknesses that already existed. Apparently greater financial punishment is necessary before policies are adjusted and buying opportunities emerge. Thus we recommend investors short our “EM Strongman Basket” consisting of the Turkish lira, the Brazilian real, and the Philippine peso, relative to the EM currency benchmark, over a tactical horizon. These currencies outperformed the EM benchmark until 2016 when they began to underperform – a trend that looks to continue (Chart 13). These leaders could get away with a lot more during a global bull market than during a bear market. It will take time for Chinese and global growth to revive this year. And their policies suggest bad news will precede good news. We would also recommend tactically shorting the South African rand on the same basis. While Russia, China, and Thailand also have strongman leaders, their countries have much better fundamentals, as our COVID Unrest Index shows. However, we do not have a bright outlook for these countries’ political stability over the long run. Russia, like all oil producers, stands to suffer in this crisis, despite its positive score on our index. In a previous report, “Drowning In Oil,” we highlighted how the petro-states face serious risks of government change, regime failure, and international conflict. This is clear with Iran and Venezuela in the above charts, and also includes Iraq, Algeria, Angola, and Nigeria. Our preferred emerging markets – from the point of view of political risk as well as macro fundamentals – are Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea, and Mexico. We warn against Taiwan due to geopolitical risk, although its fundamentals are positive. We are generally constructive on India, but it is susceptible to unrest, which we will assess in future reports. Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy roukayai@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 On April 16, Duterte ordered quarantine violators be arrested without warning. According to the UN, over one hundred thousand people have been arrested for violating curfew orders. The Philippines along with China, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and El Salvador were singled out by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights are using unnecessary force to enforce the lockdowns and committing human rights violations in the veil of coronavirus restrictions. Duterte’s greenlight on a “shoot to kill” order against those participating in protests in violation of lockdown followed small-scale demonstrations in protest of Duterte’s handling of COVID-19.

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of April 30, 2020.  The model has not made significant changes this month. Now Spain, Australia, Sweden and the US are the top four overweight countries, while Japan, the UK, France and Switzerland remain the four underweight countries, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark in April by 105 bps. The Level 1 model outperformed by 32 bps because of the overweight in the US. The Level 2 model outperformed by 241 bps thanks to the overweight of Australia and Canada, and the underweight in Japan, the UK, France and Switzerland. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 105 bps, with 135 bps of outperformance by the Level 2 model, and 29 bps of outperformance from the Level 1. Chart 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA US Vs. Non US Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non US Model (Level 2) For more on historical performance, please refer to our website https://www.bcaresearch.com/site/trades/allocation_performance/latest/G…. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered as well when making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of April 30, 2020. Chart 4Overall Model Performance The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The model turned negative on cyclical sectors in the beginning of March as the COVID-19 crisis intensified and growth indicators deteriorated. Throughout March, April and now May, the model continues to tilt towards defensive sectors. This has helped mitigate the shortfall in early March. However, that came at a cost as the model underperformed the benchmark by 33 basis points over the past month. The global growth proxy used in our model remains negative. This will continue to make the model's positioning focused on less cyclical sectors. The momentum component led the model to overweight Consumer Discretionary over the past month at the expense of Utilities. The unprecedented global monetary measures taken by global central banks should keep the liquidity component favouring a mixed bag of cyclical and defensive sectors. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors except Energy. However, we continue to highlight that the Info Tech’s valuation component has broken into overweight territory (yet the model awaits a downwards confirming momentum signal to recommend an underweight). The model is now overweight four sectors in total, two cyclical sector versus two defensive sectors. These are Information Technology, Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, and Health Care. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model”, dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Table 3Overall Model Performance Table 4Current Model Allocations Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com

Feature Global equities have seen an astonishing rally since mid-March, rising by 28%. This leaves them only 13% below their level at the beginning of the year. This is particularly remarkable given the unprecedented decline in economic activity with, for example, US GDP shrinking by an annualized 4.8% quarter-on-quarter in Q1, and the consensus forecasting it to fall by as much as 30% in Q2. Given this, risk assets are pricing in a highly optimistic trajectory over the coming months: a rapid return to normalcy, a V-shaped economic recovery, and minimal side-effects from the sudden stop to the world economy. In our Q2 Quarterly, we wrote we would turn more cautious if the S&P 500 moved quickly above 2,750.1 With it now at 2910, we are therefore lowering our recommendation on global equities on a 12-month horizon from Overweight to Neutral. The balance of probabilities – and the possibility of a second wave of the pandemic, rising corporate defaults, and problems among EM borrowers – simply does not justify an outright risk-on stance. Bear markets typically end 3-4 months before the economy bottoms (Table 1). If March was the low for stocks, therefore, this implies that the recession will end in June or July. BCA Research’s view is that the recovery is more likely to be U-shaped than V-shaped. Table 1Stocks Bottom On Average 3-4 Months Before The Recession Ends Chart 1New COVID-19 Cases Have Peaked What triggered the rally? Most notably, it anticipated a peaking of new COVID-19 cases in the world outside China (Chart 1). Several countries, notably Spain and Italy, have already felt able to ease quarantine rules, and others will do so during May. This raises the possibility that the pandemic will largely be over by July (except perhaps in a few developing countries, such as Brazil, where strict containment was shunned). The rally was fueled by unprecedented fiscal and monetary measures taken by the authorities everywhere. In the US, for example, the various new Federal Reserve liquidity programs add up to $4.2 trillion (20% of GDP) (Chart 2). The balance-sheets of major global central banks, particularly the Fed's, have ballooned in just a few weeks (Chart 3). As a result, US money supply and dollar liquidity have soared (Chart 4). Normally, when there is a flood of liquidity over and above what is needed to fund the real economy, that excess liquidity flows into asset markets, weakens the dollar, and boosts commodities and Emerging Markets. But these are not normal times. Liquidity injections amid deteriorating economic conditions cushion the downside but do not necessarily improve the outlook immediately – as we witnessed in 2007-2008.   Chart 2Multiple New Stimulus Programs… Chart 3...Made Central Bank Balance-Sheets Balloon... Chart 4...And Dollar Liquidity Soar Chart 5Pandemics Usually Have Several Waves The biggest risk is that the pandemic lingers. Epidemiologists agree that COVID-19 will not disappear until (1) a vaccine is available, likely to be 12-18 months (if one is possible at all – there is still no vaccine for HIV or SARS), or (2) 65-80% of the population has had the disease, creating “herd immunity”. Maybe a vaccine will be ready sooner, or a therapeutic treatment will drastically lower the mortality rate – but investors should not bet on it. It is worth remembering that the last big pandemic, the Spanish ‘flu of 1918-1919, had several waves, with the second the deadliest (Chart 5). It is possible that each time governments ease containment measures, the number of new cases will rise again. And even if they don’t, how likely is it that consumers will go back to shopping, eating in restaurants, or travelling as before? Big data from China show a general return to work but not to going out for entertainment (Chart 6). This is likely to remain a drag on the economy for a considerable period.   Chart 6Chinese Remain Reluctant To Go Out Moreover, the fiscal and stimulus packages will help to tide over households and companies in advanced economies during the toughest times – replacing lost wages, and providing bridging loans – but they do not solve the fundamental problem for firms that have lost most of their revenues. US corporate debt is at its highest percentage of GDP in recent history – and the ratio is even higher in parts of Europe, Japan, and China (Chart 7). Bankruptcies are likely to rise, which will make banks more cautious about lending, further tightening credit conditions. Moreover, stimulus packages won’t help Emerging Market borrowers, which have around $4 trillion of outstanding foreign-currency-denominated debt. With the sharp rise in EM credit spreads and fall in currencies over the past three months, many will struggle to service and repay this debt (Chart 8). Chart 7Corporate Debt Is At A Worrying Level Chart 8EM Dollar Borrowers Will Struggle     Portfolio construction is about probabilities. The scenario priced into risk assets currently – a rapid return to the status quo ante – could turn out to be correct. But there is a significant probability that it does not. We therefore recommend taking some risk off the table. We would not switch into quality government bonds as a hedge, since current yields would give little return even in a disastrous economic scenario – and could produce very negative returns if inflation picks up. We, rather, recommend Overweights in cash and gold, and a relatively low-beta tilt within equities.  Equities: Valuations, especially in the US, have not hit typical market-bottom levels. The price/book ratio for US equities, for example, troughed only at 2.9 in March, compared to a bear-market low of 1.5 in 2009 (Chart 9). Earnings will probably be revised down further: the consensus still expects only a 12% decline in S&P 500 EPS in 2020 (and a 21% jump next year); earnings revisions are usually closely correlated to stock prices (Chart 10). We, therefore, remain cautious in our regional equity positioning, with an Overweight on US stocks, and a somewhat defensive sector tilt (Overweights in IT and Healthcare, along with Industrials as a play on Chinese stimulus). One factor to watch: any sustained pickup in value and small-cap stocks, which showed some signs of appearing in late April (Chart 11). This has historically signaled the beginning of a bull market. Chart 9US Valuations Are Not At Usual Bottom Lows Chart 10Weak Earnings Can Drag Markets Down Further     Chart 11When Will Value And Small Caps Pick Up? Fixed Income: Quality government bonds look highly unattractive at current yields. Our calculations suggest only an 6.7% return from 10-year US Treasuries and 4.6% from Bunds even if their yields fall to the lowest possible level, 0% and -1% respectively. Inflation-linked bonds, especially in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada, look very undervalued, however.2 US 10-year breakevens have fallen to as low as 1.1% (Chart 12). In spread product, the best strategy at the moment is to buy what central banks are buying. That means investment-grade bonds in the US and Europe, Fallen Angels3  (since both the Fed and ECB will backstop bonds that were downgraded to junk in the past month), US Aaa CMBS and ABS, Agency CMBS, and munis. But the riskier end of the junk-bond universe looks unattractive. Even a moderate default cycle (with a 9% default rate for junk bonds – compared to 15% in the last recession – and a 25% recovery rate) would point to an excess return from B-rated corporate bonds of -20% over the next 12 months (Chart 13). Chart 12TIPS Look Very Cheap Chart 13Avoid The Lower End Of Junk Currencies: The dollar has moved sideways on a trade-weighted basis over the past two months. We remain Neutral, since in the short term the dollar could face upward pressure as a safe-haven play, especially versus Emerging Market currencies, if investors start to worry again about growth. In the longer run, however, the dollar looks expensive relative to purchasing power parity (Chart 14), and interest-rate differentials no longer favor it as they have done over much of the past decade (Chart 15). BCA Research’s FX strategists recommend a barbell strategy in currencies, with Overweights in cheap cyclical currencies such as the Canadian dollar and Norwegian krone, as well as safe havens such as the yen.4 Chart 14Dollar Is Expensive... Chart 15...And No Longer Benefits From Higher Rates     Commodities: After the extraordinary behavior of near-month WTI futures in April, the crude price should settle down. BCA Research’s energy strategists argue that renewed production cuts from Saudi Arabia and Russia, combined with a near-normalization in demand in H2, should push crude-oil balances back into a supply deficit by Q3 (Chart 16). Chart 16Oil Price Should Rise In H2 They forecast Brent to rise to $42 a barrel by the end of 2020, compared to $24 now. Industrial metals prices have generally remained depressed, despite the recovery in risk assets (Chart 17). But the effects of Chinese stimulus, combined with a weaker dollar, should cause them to recover later in the year (Chart 18). Gold remains a good hedge against further economic shocks or an eventual resurgence in inflation. Chart 17Metal Prices Haven't Recovered... Chart 18...But Should Soon Benefit From Chinese Stimulus   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Asset Allocation, “Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality,” dated April 1, 2020. 2  Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low," dated April 28, 2020. 3  Bonds that have recently been downgraded from investment grade to sub-investment grade. 4  Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "QE And Currencies," dated April 17, 2020. GAA Asset Allocation  

Highlights WTI futures contracts delivering into Cushing, Oklahoma, in June could trade or go off the board below $0.00/bbl next month, just as the May contracts did this month, when they changed hands at a low of -$40.32/bbl last week.  Oil storage at this critical hub is approaching its practical limit of 80% full, raising the odds of sub-zero pricing (Chart of the Week). Pricing pressures will accelerate the rate of oil-supply destruction in the US, particularly in the prolific shale-oil basins.  We are revising our estimate of US production losses upward to 1.6mm b/d this year, and to 2.3mm b/d from January 2020 to December 2021. Retail speculation – in the US via ETFs and long-only index exposure, and in China via bank wealth-management products – is compounding WTI price volatility. The CME Group, which operates the NYMEX WTI futures and options markets, will be forced to address storage constraints in Cushing, and will have to better manage retail-spec positioning: These factors increase the probability of negative pricing and exacerbate price volatility as contracts go off the board. Feature The stunning -$40.32/bbl print for May 2020 WTI futures last week marks the first time this global oil benchmark has traded below $0.00/bbl. Negative prices are nothing new to non-storable commodities. In electricity markets, for example, wholesale prices go negative to force generation offline to balance supply and demand so that markets clear.1 Negative pricing also is seen in natural gas markets. It is occurring in the Permian basin with greater frequency, due to insufficient pipeline take-away capacity for all of the associated gas being produced there as oil output in the basin soars. This leaves no alternative to producers but to either shut in oil production or flare the associated gas. Indeed, forward natgas prices at the Waha Hub in Pecos County, Texas, recently have traded below zero for prolonged periods, owing to the surge in Permian oil production (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekCushing Approaches Crude Storage Limit Chart 2Lack Of Storage Pushes Natgas Prices Below Zero   Markets once again were reminded WTI futures are far more than electronic blips on computer screens: They are binding legal contracts to physically deliver light-sweet West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil into the Cushing, Oklahoma, pipeline and storage hub. The stunning -$40.32/bbl print for May 2020 WTI futures last week marks the first time this global oil benchmark has traded below $0.00/bbl since the 1983 introduction of the NYMEX crude oil futures (Chart 3). Markets once again were reminded WTI futures are far more than electronic blips on computer screens: They are binding legal contracts to physically deliver light-sweet West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil into the Cushing, Oklahoma, pipeline and storage hub. Going off the board long requires contract holders to take delivery into a pipeline or storage facility; going off short requires contract holders to make delivery. Chart 3WTI June Futures Could Go Below $0.00/bbl Owing to structural flaws in the delivery mechanism for WTI futures, and what appears to be a lapse in monitoring positions in the spot-month contract as May 2020 WTI was going off the board last week, the likelihood June 2020 WTI contracts pricing below $0.00/bbl is high. These flaws must be addressed by the CME Group’s NYMEX division and federal regulators, given the WTI futures contract’s importance to the global physical market and the capital at risk. Implications Of Negative WTI Prices Storage at Cushing is, for all intents and purposes, full. Cushing accounts for ~ 15% of the total 653mm barrels of US crude oil storage, which was only at 60% of capacity in mid-April, based on the US EIA’s reckoning. However, Cushing is the delivery point of the physically settled WTI futures contracts traded on the NYMEX. With close to 80% of capacity filled – ~ 58mm barrels of the total capacity of ~ 76mm barrels – the operational limit of storage has been reached at Cushing. This is amply seen in the June-vs-July intermonth spread between futures, which, earlier this week, settled at more than $5/bbl – i.e., more than 10x the then-elevated 50 cents/bbl/month being charged to store oil in Cushing in March (Chart 4). Intermonth spreads are used as proxies for the cost of storage for physically delivered contract that actually can be stored, like oil. If physical surpluses cannot be moved out of regions where storage is full – and pipelines also are full – prices are forced lower and lower until enough production is shut in to allow storage to drain and inventories to return to normal levels. This is happening now in Oklahoma and the prolific Texas shale basins, and other shale basins in the US where horizontal rigs are being laid down and drilling crews are being laid off (Chart 5). Chart 4Intermonth-Spread Blow Out Indicates Full Cushing Storage Chart 5Texas Horizontal Rig Counts Collapse We are revising our estimate of US production losses upward for this year, and to 2.3mm b/d from January 2020 to December 2021. In our most recent modeling of US shale-oil production, we expect these pricing pressures to accelerate the rate of oil-supply destruction, particularly in the prolific shale-oil basins. In fact, we are revising our estimate of US production losses upward for this year, and to 2.3mm b/d from January 2020 to December 2021 (Chart 6). Depending on how long WTI prices stay depressed in the key producing basins, this supply destruction could be even more pronounced. The same is true of global storage: Kpler, the oil-storage tracker, last week estimated global onshore inventories were 85% full.3 Until sufficient supply destruction occurs to offset the COVID-19-induced demand destruction, inventories cannot draw. Floating storage also is surging, as the crude and product forward curves fall deeper into contango, and incentivize holding stocks on the water (Chart 7). Chart 6Lower Prices Will Push US Oil Output Lower Chart 7Floating Storage Volumes Surge Price will go low enough – negative if needs be – to clear surplus supply to rebalance markets. Storage acts as a shock absorber for physical commodities like crude oil – when there is more supply than demand, the physical surplus is moved to storage until it is needed, and vice versa when there is a physical deficit. When inventories fill in Cushing – arguably the most important crude-oil delivery hub in the world, given WTI is the most liquid crude oil futures contract in the world – it is as if there is no storage at all there. At this point, market for WTI behaves a lot like electricity, which cannot be stored (at least at utility scale), or natgas at Waha, where storage and pipeline takeaway capacity are in very short supply. In such circumstances, price will go low enough – negative if needs be – to clear surplus supply to rebalance markets. This appears to be what spooked markets last week when WTI futures for May delivery traded as low as -$40.32/bbl. Retail Specs Push WTI Volatility Higher Speculators perform a vital and necessary function in futures markets – they willingly accept risk hedgers want to shed. Natural longs – i.e., producers – do not want to sell when prices are low, which is when natural shorts want to buy. Likewise, natural shorts – i.e., consumers – don’t want to buy when prices are high, which is when natural longs want to sell. Speculators provide the liquidity that allows producers and consumers to hedge. When prices are relatively high, they can provide a bid to oil producers looking to hedge production – they may be short-term traders or have a view prices are going higher, or they may be getting out of short positions they put on earlier. When prices are low, speculators provide offers – selling futures because they are short-term traders, or have a view prices are going lower, or they are getting out of long positions. Speculators trade on information and typically never stand for delivery of futures like WTI, which means they typically are out of prompt-month contracts before they are getting ready to go off the board. At that point, only physical-market participants – producers, consumers and physical traders – are left in the market balancing their physical books. When speculators find themselves trading WTI futures as they are getting ready to go to delivery, something in their risk-management systems has gone terribly wrong. Not only do they not trade the physical oil, but they don’t know who to call to take them out of their risk. Something also has gone terribly wrong at the regulatory level: At the CME, which, as the operator of the NYMEX oil trading markets, and at the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in Washington, D.C. The CME is the self-regulatory organization responsible for ensuring its rules are followed and markets trade in an orderly fashion, and, at the federal level, the CFTC exercises oversight and enforces laws and regulations. It appears Bank of China (BOC), the fourth largest bank in China and the world, has found itself holding long positions in WTI futures delivering in May on the last two days of trading last week. These contracts supported wealth-management products – known as “bao” or treasure – the state-owned bank offered its retail clients.4 Other banks in China also offer such products, but it appears BOC was the only one that did not roll out of its delivery exposure in a timely manner.5 The exposure BOC was trying to trade out of was not huge by normal standards, but after settling its open May futures at -$37.63/bbl, BOC clients apparently lost close to $1.3 billion.6 How the CME or the CFTC allowed a commercial bank with no capability to take delivery of WTI in Cushing against a long NYMEX WTI futures contract as it was going off the board is a mystery. Markets will have to wait for a detailed post-mortem to determine what exactly happened, and how. Retail Piles Into WTI Exposure The experience of BOC – and, most likely, the shock of such deeply negative WTI prices realized upon settlement of these contracts – and a change in US regulations on spot-month position limits for futures used by commodity-pool operators prompted a wholesale exodus from spot-month WTI futures – the June 2020-delivery WTI futures that deliver in Cushing – this week. As a result, the commodity-pool operator running the United States Oil Fund (USO) ETF and S&P Dow Jones, which designs and markets long-only commodity index products for investors – e.g., the S&P GSCI index – rolled their June WTI futures into July and later months in an effort to avoid holding length in the June contract out of fear these futures could trade negative.7 USO is geared to retail investors, and inflows are negatively correlated with front-month WTI futures prices – when prices tank retail investors pile into the ETF (Chart 8). This can dramatically increase the number of futures the fund has to buy to provide its product to retail investors. Chart 8Retail Piles Into WTI Futures Exposure Markets were exceptionally volatile early in the week as these fire sales were being executed. The $3.6 billion USO ETF, in particular, apparently was ordered to spread its spot-month exposure (June WTI) across the forward curve by the CME over the first three days of this week. This action was taken to keep the USO ETF from exceeding new position-limit levels in the spot-month contract, which go into effect May 1, and state no entity can have more than 25% of total open interest in the WTI spot contract.8 Markets were exceptionally volatile early in the week as these fire sales were being executed. This rolling out of June WTI exposures should reduce – but not eliminate – the selling pressure on front-month WTI futures contracts by providers of retail and institutional commodity exposure as June goes off the board next month. However, if storage at Cushing remains at tank tops, the rolling by these ETFs that source futures liquidity to hedge their exposures could again push spot prices below $0.00/bbl as the June WTI futures go off the board May 19.9 That said, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what exposure retail investors are getting now when they buy the USO ETF – its WTI futures now span contracts into next year, based on news reports. This could prompt investors to jettison positions, setting up another round of fire sales in WTI futures. Markets also will expect a post-mortem explaining how the CME and CFTC allowed this retail-focused fund could exceed position limits in spot-month WTI futures contracts so significantly at any point in time, let alone when Cushing infrastructure is so extraordinarily taxed. WTI Futures Contract Flaws Contribute To Volatility The CME has failed to find a way to ensure those holding futures that are going off the board are bona fide hedgers capable of making and taking delivery, as the BOC experience showed. The CME Group has not acquitted itself well in the termination of May 2020 futures trading. And, as researchers at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies note, the past couple of weeks have exposed deep flaws in the WTI futures contracts’ physical-delivery mechanisms, which have been persistent.10 The lack of sufficient storage at Cushing to accommodate the volume of trading in WTI futures is not a new problem. In 2009, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia changed its pricing benchmark for US sales to the Argus Sour Crude Index for its crudes sold into the US Gulf, because the WTI contract detached from fundamentals then owing to infrastructure constraints at Cushing. The CME has failed to find a way to ensure those holding futures that are going off the board are bona fide hedgers capable of making and taking delivery, as the BOC experience showed. In addition, the CME has shown it has no institutionalized automatic delivery procedures that kick in when Cushing storage is full – e.g., making and taking delivery, say, in the US Gulf using a WTI contract loaded for export, as the OIES researchers observe. Lastly, as of April 22, the CME is using an options-pricing model based on the original theory on random walks developed by the great Louis Bachelier in 1900, which assumes prices are normally distributed and can go below zero, vs. its previous methodology using Fischer Black’s commodity option pricing model, which assumes prices are log-normally distributed and have a lower boundary of zero.11 We’ll be exploring this in further research.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Exports from OPEC countries increased by more than 2mm b/d in April – led by Saudi Arabia and UAE – according to Petro-Logistics – a seaborne oil trade analytics company. This is flooding global markets while global demand is expected to drop to its lowest level since 2Q03 this month. Separately, we are revising up our Canadian oil sands shut-in estimates to ~ 800k b/d in 2Q20 from ~ 500k b/d, as US demand for Canadian oil will be hit more severely than we previously anticipated and local storage is filling rapidly. Rystad Energy now expects Canadian capex to fall 41% y/y in 2020. This will have a lasting impact on the industry’s production capacity. Base Metals: Neutral The LMEX rose 3% since the start of April – led by nickel and copper prices moving up by ~ 6%. Base metals – chiefly aluminum and copper – are poised to rebound in 2Q20 if China’s economy continues to improve and is not hit by a second wave of COVID-19 infections. According to BCA’s China Investment Strategy, the country’s fiscal response is now expected to reach 10% of its GDP this year. This will support further upside in base metals prices (Chart 9). Precious Metals: Neutral Despite the record fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed globally, consumer and market-based inflation expectations remain low, as markets focus on the deflationary effects of the COVID-19 shock and the uncertainty about the speed of the recovery (Chart 10). The low realized inflation post-GFC stimulus could influence investors’ expectations down. We see inflation risks as materially higher which will warrant larger protection in a diversified portfolio over the coming year. Inflation expectations will normalize later this year and next, boosting inflation hedges. Nominal bonds’ protection will remain expensive as rates in major DM countries are expected to stay low for a prolonged period. Chart 9 Chart 10       Footnotes 1     Please see Bajwa, Maheen and Joseph Cavicchi, “Growing Evidence of Increased Frequency of Negative Electricity Prices in U.S. Wholesale Electricity Markets.” IAEE Energy Forum, 4th Quarter 2017. 2     Please see U.S. Gas Prices Turn Negative at Texas Waha Hub published by the Pipeline & Gas Journal March 3, 2020. The article notes, “The first swing to negative spot prices in almost seven months occurred due to pipeline constraints and as mild weather cut heating demand. Prices in the forward market have been trading below zero for weeks on expectations there will not be enough pipelines to transport record amounts of gas from the region’s shale oil fields. That gas that comes from oil wells, called associated gas in the industry, helped propel U.S. gas output to record highs, driving prices to their lowest in years as production outpaces demand for the fuel. Analysts expect gas prices in 2020 to fall to their lowest since 1999.” 3    Please see Oil prices sink as world runs low on storage capacity amid frail demand published by reuters.com April 28, 2020. The IEA estimates total onshore storage globally at close to 7 billion barrels, according to the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, D.C. Please see The Oil Inventory Challenge published by the CSIS April 20, 2020, which notes the US has ~ 1.3 billion barrels of storage, while China has an estimated 1.5 billion barrels. Of that ~ 7 billion barrels of nameplate capacity, ~ 80%, or ~ 5.6 billion barrels, represents the operational limit. 4    Please see The world's 100 largest banks published by S&P Global Market Intelligence April 5, 2019. 5    Please see China's ICBC closes commodity-linked products to new investment published by reuters.com April 27, 2020. 6    Please see Bank of China says main investors to settle crude oil product at -$37 published by reuters.com on April 22, 2020. 7     Please see Futures contract moves endangering WTI prices again published by worldoil.com April 28, 2020. 8    Please see USO ETF pushes oil futures exposure out to June 2021 published by etfstrategy.com April 27, 2020. Earlier this month, the USO ETF has accounted for close to 30% of June WTI futures. Please see Biggest Oil ETF Shakes Up Structure published by etf.com April 17, 2020. 9    The USO ETF is not the only fund sourcing futures liquidity to provide retail exposure to WTI, but it is by far the largest. Please see Oil ETF roils already volatile crude markets published April 27, 2020, by investmentnews.com. 10   Please see Oil Benchmarks Under Stress published by OIES April 28, 2020. 11    Please see Davis, Mark, and Alison Etheridge. Louis Bachelier's Theory of Speculation: The Origins of Modern Finance. Princeton University Press, 2006; and Black, Fischer, “The Pricing of Commodity Contracts,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, (1976), pp. 167-79, reprinted with permission in Interrelations Among Futures, Option, and Futures Option Markets (1992), the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago publisher.     Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

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

Highlights The global economy will contract at its fastest pace since the early 1930s, but will not slump into a depression. Easy monetary conditions, an extremely expansive fiscal policy, and solid bank and household balance sheets are crucial to the economic outlook. Risk assets remain attractive. The dollar and bonds will soon move from bull to bear markets. The credit market offers some attractive opportunities. Stocks are vulnerable to short-term profit-taking, but the cyclical outlook remains bright. Favor energy and consumer discretionary equities. Feature What a difference a month makes. US and global equities have rallied by 31.4% and 28.3% from their March lows, respectively. Last month we recommended investors shift the weighting of their portfolios to stocks over bonds. April’s dramatic turnaround has not altered our positive view of equities on a 12- to 24-month basis, especially relative to government bonds. However, the probability of near-term profit taking is significant. The spectacular dislocation in the oil market also has grabbed headlines. This was a capitulation event. Hence, assets linked to oil are now cyclically attractive, even if they remain volatile in the coming weeks. It is time to buy energy equities, especially firms with solid balance sheets and proven dividend records. Under the IMF’s base case, the resulting output loss will total $9 trillion. Finally, the Federal Reserve’s large liquidity injections have dulled the dollar’s strength. While the USD still has some upside risk in the near term, investors should continue to transfer capital into foreign currencies. A weaker dollar will be the catalyst to lift Treasury yields and will contribute to the outperformance of energy stocks. Dismal Growth Versus Vigorous Policy Responses Chart I-1Consumer Spending Is In Freefall The economic lockdowns and the collapse in consumer confidence continue to take their toll on the US and global economies (Chart I-1). The eventual end of the shelter-at-home orders and the progressive re-opening of the economy will halt this trend. The rapid monetary and fiscal easing worldwide will allow growth to recover smartly in the second half of the year, but only after authorities loosen extreme social distancing measures. The Economy Is In Freefall… First-quarter US growth is already as weak as it was at the depth of the recession that followed the Great Financial Crisis. The second quarter will be even more anemic. Our Live-Trackers for both the US and global economies either continue to collapse or have flat-lined at rock-bottom levels (Chart I-2). US industrial production is falling at a 21% quarterly annualized rate and the weakness in the PMI manufacturing survey warns that the worst is yet to come. In March, retail sales contracted by 8.7% compared with February, which was the poorest reading on record, and year-on-year comparisons will only deteriorate further. Annual GDP growth could fall below -11% next quarter with both the industrial and consumer sectors in shock, according to the New York Fed Weekly Economic Index (Chart I-3). Chart I-2No Hope From The Live Trackers Chart I-3Real GDP Growth Is Melting The IMF expects the recession to eclipse the post GFC-slump, in both advanced and emerging economies. Its most recent World Economic Outlook describes base-case 2020 growth of -5.9%, -7.5%, and -1.0% in the US, Eurozone and emerging markets, respectively. This compares with -2.5%, -4.5% and 2.8% each in 2009. If a second wave of infections forces renewed lockdowns in the fall, then 2020 growth could be 5.12% and 4.49% lower than baseline in developed markets and emerging markets, respectively. Under the IMF’s base case, the resulting output loss will total $9 trillion in the coming 3 years (Chart I-4). Chart I-4An Enormous Output Gap Is Forming Chart I-5Disinflation Build-Up An output gap of the magnitude depicted by the IMF will dampen inflation for the next 12 to 24 months. In addition to the shortfall in aggregate demand, imploding economic confidence and the lag effect of the Fed’s monetary tightening in 2018 will pull down the velocity of money even further. This combination will reduce US inflation to 1.5% or lower (Chart I-5, top panel). The Price Paid component of both the Philly Fed and Empire State Manufacturing Surveys already captures this impact. The return of producer price deflation in China guarantees that weak US import prices will add to domestic deflationary pressures (Chart I-5 third panel). The recent strength in the dollar will only amplify imported deflation (Chart I-5, bottom panel). A deflationary shock is an immediate problem for businesses and creates a huge risk for household incomes because it exacerbates the already violent contraction in aggregate demand. In the coming months, the weakest nominal GDP growth since the Great Depression will depress profits. BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy team expects S&P 500 operating earnings per share to drop from $162 in 2019 to no further than $104 in 2020.1 The profits of small businesses will suffer even more. Cash flow shortfalls will also cause corporate defaults to spike because many firms will not be able to service their debt (Chart I-6). Currently, 86% of the job losses since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis are temporary. However, if corporate bankruptcies spike too fast and too high, then these job losses will become permanent and household incomes will not recover quickly. A sharp but brief recession would turn into a long depression. Chart I-6Defaults Can Only Rise …But The Liquidity Crisis Will Not Morph Into A Solvency Crisis… In response to the aggregate demand shock caused by COVID-19, global central banks are supporting lending. These policies are an essential ingredient to flatten the default curve and minimize the permanent hit to employment and household income. The US Fed is acting as the central banker to the world. The US Fed is acting as the central banker to the world. Its new quantitative easing program has already added $1.36 trillion in excess reserves this quarter. Moreover, the Fed’s decision to loosen supplementary liquidity ratios and capital adequacy ratios allows the interbank and offshore markets to normalize. Meanwhile, the Fed’s swap lines with global central banks have surged by $432 billion since the crisis began. Its FIMA facility also permits central banks to pledge Treasurys as collateral to receive US dollars. These two programs let global central banks provide dollar funding to the private sector outside the US. Chart I-7Easing Liquidity Stress The Fed is also supporting the credit market directly. The $250 billion Secondary Market Corporate Facility, the $500 billion Primary Market Corporate Facility and the $600 billion Main Street New Loan and Expanded Loan Facilities, all mean that firms with a credit rating above Baa or a debt-to-EBITDA ratio below 4x can still get funding. Together with the $100 billion Term-Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility, these measures will prevent a liquidity crisis from morphing into a solvency crisis in which healthier borrowers cannot roll over their debt. Such a crisis would magnify the inevitable increase in defaults manyfold.  The market is already reflecting the impact of the Fed’s programs. Corporate spreads for credit tiers affected by the Fed’s support are narrowing (Chart I-7). Spreads reflective of liquidity conditions, such as the FRA-OIS gap, the Commercial paper-OIS spread and cross-currency basis-swap spreads, have also begun to normalize. The narrowing of bank CDS spreads demonstrates that unlike the GFC, the current crisis does not threaten the viability of major commercial banks (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Other central banks are doing their share. The Bank of Canada is buying provincial debt to ensure that the authorities directly tasked with managing the pandemic have the ability to do so. The European Central Bank has enacted a QE program of at least EUR1.1 trillion and enlarged the TLTRO facility while decreasing its interest rate, which cheapens the cost of financing for commercial banks. Moreover, the ECB has also eased liquidity and capital adequacy ratios for commercial banks. Last week, it announced that it would also accept junk bonds as collateral, as long as these bonds were rated as investment grade prior to April 7, 2020. …And Governments Are Pulling Levers… Chart I-8Record Fiscal Easing Governments, too, are ensuring that private-sector default rates do not spike uncontrollably and doom the economy to a repeat of the 1930s. Policymakers in the G-10 and China have announced larger stimulus packages than the programs implemented in the wake of the GFC (Chart I-8). The US’s programs already total $2.89 trillion or 13% of 2020 GDP. Germany is abandoning fiscal discipline and has declared stimulus measures totaling 12% of GDP. Italy’s package is more modest at 3% of GDP. Even powerhouse China is not taking chances. In addition to a larger fiscal package than in 2008, the reserve requirement ratio stands at 9.5%, the lowest level in 13 years, and the People’s Bank of China cut the rate of interest on excess reserves by 37 basis points to 0.35% (Chart I-9). The last cut to the IOER was in November 2008 and was of 27 basis points. This interest rate easing preceded a CNY4 trillion increase in the stock of credit, which played a major role in the global recovery that began in 2009. Hence, the recent IOER reduction, in light of the decline in loan prime rates and MLF rates, suggests that China is getting ready to boost its economy by as much as in 2008. Chart I-9China Is Pressing On The Gas Pedal Among the advanced economies, loan guarantees supplement growing deficits. So far, this protection totals at least $1.3 trillion. While guarantees do not directly boost the income and spending of the private sector, they address the risk of an uncontrolled spike in defaults. Therefore, they minimize the odds that rocketing temporary layoffs will morph into permanent unemployment. Section II, written by BCA’s Jonathan Laberge, addresses the question of fiscal policy and whether the packages announced so far are large enough to fill the hole created by COVID-19. While a deep recession is unavoidable, governments will provide more stimulus if activity does not soon stabilize. … While Banks And Household Balance Sheets Compare Favorably To 2008 Banks and the household sector, the largest agent in the private sector, entered 2020 on stronger footing than prior to the GFC. Otherwise, all the fiscal and monetary easing in the world would do little to support the global economy. If banks were as weak as when they entered the GFC, then monetary stimulus would have remained trapped in the banking system in the form of excess reserves. Both in the US and in the euro area, banks now possess higher capital adequacy ratios than in 2008 (Chart I-10). Moreover, as BCA Research’s US Investment Strategy service has demonstrated, the large cash holdings and low loan-to-deposit ratio of the US banking system reinforces its strength (Chart I-11).2  Thus, banks are unlikely to tighten credit standards for as long as they did after the GFC. Broad money expansion should outpace the post-GFC experience, as the surge in US M2 growth to a post-war record of 16% indicates. Chart I-10Banks Have More Capital Than In 2008… Chart I-11...And Have More Cash And Secure Funding     Consumers are also in better shape than in 2008. Last December, US household debt stood at 99.7% of disposable income compared with a peak of 136% in 2008. More importantly, financial obligations represented only 15.1% of disposable income, a near-record low. Limited financial obligations suggest that consumer bankruptcies should remain manageable as long as governments help households weather the current period of temporary unemployment (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, household indebtedness in Spain and Ireland has collapsed from 137% to 94% and from 183% to 85% of disposable income, respectively. Italy, despite its structural economic weakness, always sported a low private-sector debt load. A precautionary rise in the savings rate is unavoidable, but it will not match the magnitude of the increase that followed the GFC. The economy will recover quicker than it did following the GFC. The deep recession engulfing the world should not evolve into a prolonged depression because banks and household balance sheets are in a better state than in 2008. While the recovery will be chaotic, the velocity of money will not remain as depressed for as long as it stayed after 2008, which will allow nominal GDP to recover faster than after the GFC. Banks and households will be quicker to lend and borrow from each other than they were after the GFC. Consequently, the collapse in the consumption of durable goods (e.g. cars) has created pent-up demand, but not a permanent downshift in the demand curve (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Robust Household Finances Chart I-13Households' Pent-Up Demand   Bottom Line: The global economy is on track to suffer its worst contraction since the 1930s. However, the combination of aggressive monetary and fiscal stimulus will prevent a rising wave of defaults from swelling to a crippling tsunami that permanently curtails household income. Given that banks and households have stronger balance sheets than in 2008, when governments ease lockdowns, the economy will recover quicker than it did following the GFC. The evolution of any second wave of infection is the crucial risk to this view. The IMF’s forecast indicates that growth will suffer substantial downside relative to its baseline scenario if the second wave is strong and forces renewed lockdowns. In this scenario, the current package of stimulus must be augmented to avoid a depression-like outcome. A big problem for forecasters, is that we do not have a good sense of how the second wave of infections will evolve. Moreover, the ability to test the population and engage in contact tracing will determine how aggressive lockdowns will be. Therefore, we currently have very little visibility to handicap the odds of each path. Investment Implications Low inflation for the next 18 months will allow monetary conditions to stay extremely accommodative. Growth will recover in the second half of 2020, so the window to own risk assets remains fully open as long as we can avoid a second wave of complete lockdowns. The Dollar’s Last Hurrah The US dollar has become dangerously expensive. According to a simple model, the dollar trades at a premium to its purchasing-parity equilibrium against major currencies, which is comparable to 1985 or 2002 when it attained its most recent cyclical tops (Chart I-14). The dollar may not trade as richly against our Behavioral Effective Exchange Rate model, but this fair value estimate has rolled over (Chart I-14, bottom panel). A peak in global policy uncertainty may be the key to timing the start of the dollar’s decline. Policy will prompt downside risk created by the dollar’s overvaluation. The US twin deficit, which is the sum of the fiscal and current account deficits, is set to explode because Washington will expand the fiscal gap by 15~20% of GDP while the private sector will not increase its savings rate at the same pace. If US real interest rates are high and rising, then foreign investors will snap up US liabilities and finance the twin deficit. If real rates are low and falling, then foreigners will demand a much cheapened dollar (which would embed higher long-term expected returns) to buy US liabilities (Chart I-15). Chart I-14The Dollar Is Pricey Chart I-15Bulging Twin Deficits Are A Worry   Real interest rates probably will not climb, hence the twin deficit will become an insurmountable burden for the dollar. The Fed has not hit its symmetric 2% inflation target since the GFC and will not do so in the next one to two years. As a result, the Fed will not lift nominal interest rates until inflation expectations, currently at 1.14%, return to the 2.3% to 2.5% zone consistent with investors believing that the Fed is achieving its mandate. Thus, real interest rates will decline, which will drag down the USD. Relative money supply trends also point to a weaker dollar in the coming 12 months (Chart I-16). The Fed is easing policy more aggressively than other central banks and US banks are better capitalized than European or Japanese ones. Therefore, US money supply growth should continue to outpace foreign money supply. The inevitable slippage of dollars out of the US economy, especially if the current account deficit widens, will boost the supply of dollars globally relative to other currencies. Without any real interest rate advantage, the USD will lose value against other currencies. China’s policy easing is also negative for the dollar. China’s large-scale stimulus will allow the global industrial cycle to recover smartly in the second half of 2020, especially if the increase in pent-up demand fuels realized demand in the fall. The US economy’s closed nature and low exposure to both trade and manufacturing will weigh on US internal rates of return relative to the rest of the world, and invite outflows (Chart I-17). This selling will accentuate downward pressure created by the aforementioned balance of payments and policy dynamics.  Chart I-16Money Supply Trends Will Hurt The Dollar Chart I-17The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency   The dollar is also vulnerable from a technical perspective. A record share of currencies is more than one-standard deviation oversold against the USD (Chart I-18). According to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), outflows from EM economies have already eclipsed their 2008 records, and the underperformance of DM assets suggests that portfolio managers have aggressively abandoned non-USD assets. These developments imply that investors who wanted to move money back into the US have already done so. Chart I-18The Dollar Is Becoming Overbought Chart I-19The Dollar Is A Momentum Currency Investors should move funds out of the dollar, but not aggressively. The outlook for the dollar in the next year or two is poor, but the USD’s most important tailwind is intact: the global economy will recover, but for the time being, it remains in freefall. Moreover, among the G-10 currencies, the dollar responds most positively to the momentum factor (Chart I-19), which remains another tailwind. The greenback will remain volatile in the coming weeks. EM currencies offer a particularly tricky dilemma. They have cheapened to levels where historically they offer very compelling long-term returns (Chart I-20). However, EM firms have large amounts of dollar-denominated debt. The fall in EM FX and collapse in domestic cash flows will likely cause some large-scale bankruptcies. If a large, famous EM company defaults, then the headline risk would probably trigger a broad-based selling of EM currencies. For now, our Emerging Market Strategy service recommends that, within the EM FX space, investors favor the currencies with the lowest funding needs, such as the RUB, KRW and THB.3 Chart I-20EM FX Is Decisively Cheap For tactical investors, a peak in global policy uncertainty may be the key to timing the start of the dollar’s decline (Chart I-21). This implies that if a second wave of infections force severe lockdowns, the dollar rally may not be done. Chart I-21Uncertainty Must Recede For The Dollar To Weaken Fixed Income Government bonds have not yet depreciated and the exact timing of a price decline remains uncertain. However, Treasurys and Bunds offer an increasingly poor cyclical risk-reward ratio. Bond valuations continue to deteriorate. Our time-tested BCA Bond Valuation model shows that G-10 bonds, in general, and US Treasurys, in particular, are at their most expensive levels since December 2008 and March 1985, two periods that preceded major increases in yields (Chart I-22). Buy inflation-protected securities at the expense of nominal bonds. Liquidity conditions also represent a threat for safe-haven bonds. The wave of liquidity unleashed by global central banks is meeting record fiscal thrust. Thus, not only is the supply of government bonds increasing, but a larger proportion of the money injected by central banks will actually make its way into the real economy than after 2008. Record-low yields are vulnerable because the increase in the global money supply should prevent nominal GDP growth from slumping permanently as in the 1930s and after the GFC. Additionally, the sharp escalation in liquid assets on the balance sheets of commercial banks also creates an additional risk for bond prices (Chart I-23). Chart I-22Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Chart I-23Liquidity Injections Point To Higher Yields   QE also threatens government fixed income. After the GFC, real interest rates fell because investors understood that US short rates would remain at zero for a long time. Yet, 10-year Treasury yields rose sharply in 2009 as inflation breakevens increased more than the decline in TIPS yields. This pattern repeated itself following each QE wave (Chart I-24). In essence, if the Fed provides enough liquidity to allow markets to function well, then the chance of cyclical deflation decreases, which warrants higher inflation expectations. A lower dollar will be fundamental to the rise in inflation breakeven and yields. A soft dollar will confirm that the Fed is providing enough liquidity to satiate dollar demand and it will favor risk-taking around the world. Moreover, it will boost commodity prices and help realize inflation increases down the line. Chart I-24QE Lifts Breakevens And Yields Technical considerations also point to the end of the bond bull market, at least for the next 12 to 18 months. Investors remain bullish toward bonds, which is a contrarian signal. Our Composite Momentum Indicator has reached levels last achieved at the end of 2008, which suggested at that time that bond-buying was long in the tooth. Chart I-25Inflation Will Drive US/German Spreads In this context, investors with a cyclical investment horizon should consider bringing duration below benchmark. In the short term, this position still carries significant risks because the outlook for yields depends on the dollar. Another dollar spike caused by renewed lockdowns would also pin yields near current levels for longer. A lower-risk version of this bet would be to buy inflation-protected securities at the expense of nominal bonds, a position recommended by our US Bond Strategy service.4  Investors should be careful when betting that US yields will further converge toward German ones. The 10-year yield spread between US Treasurys and German Bunds has quickly narrowed, falling by 170 basis points from a high of 279 basis points in November 2018. Despite this sharp contraction, the spread remains elevated by historical standards. So far, the declining yield gap reflects the fall in policy rates in the US relative to Europe. Given that both the Fed and the ECB are at the lower bounds of their policy rates, short-rate differentials are unlikely to compress further. Instead, inflation differentials between the US and Europe must decline (Chart I-25). The inflation gap between the US and Europe probably will not narrow significantly this year. The IMF forecasts that Europe’s economy will underperform the US. Therefore, slack in Europe will expand faster than in the US. Moreover, monetary and fiscal support in the US is more aggressive than in Europe. Consequently, a weaker dollar, which will increase US inflation expectations relative to Europe, will put upward pressure on the US/German 10-year spread. However, if the European fiscal policy response starts to match the size of the US stimulus, then the spread between the US and Germany would narrow further. Ample liquidity also continues to underpin equity prices. Finally, for credit investors, our US Bond Strategy service recommends buying securities with abnormally large spreads and which the various Fed programs target. These include agency CMBS, consumer ABS, municipal bonds, and corporates rated Ba and above.5 Equities Chart I-26Investors Are Not Exuberant About Stocks Despite some short-term risks, we continue to favor equities on a 12- to 18-month investment horizon in an environment where a second wave of lockdowns can be avoided. Stock valuations have deteriorated, but they remain broadly attractive (see page 2 of Section III). While multiples are not particularly cheap, the equity risk premium remains very high. Alternatively, the expected growth rate of long-term earnings embedded in stock prices continues to hover at the bottom of its post-war distribution (Chart I-26). In other words, stocks are attractive because bond yields are low. Ample liquidity also continues to underpin equity prices. Our US Financial Liquidity Index points to rising S&P 500 returns in the coming months (Chart I-27). The Fed’s surging liquidity injections, which foreign central banks are mimicking, will only accentuate this backdrop. Moreover, in times of crisis, inflation expectations correlate positively with stock prices because “bad deflation” represents an existential threat to profitability.6 QE lifts inflation expectations, therefore, its bearish impact on bond prices should not translate into a fall in stock prices. Chart I-27Ample Liquidity For The S&P 500 Chart I-28Valuation And Monetary Condition Offset COVID-19 The combined valuation and liquidity backdrop are accommodative enough for stocks to persevere higher, despite the immense economic shock generated by COVID-19. The readings of our BCA Valuation and Monetary Indicator are even more accommodative for stocks than they were in Q1 2009, which marked the beginning of a 340% bull market (Chart I-28). Moreover, trend growth may have been less negatively affected by COVID-19 than it was by the GFC. Consequently, our US Equity Strategy service uses the historical pattern of profit rebounds subsequent to recessions to anticipate 2021 S&P 500 earnings per share of $162.1 Technicals remain supportive for stocks on a cyclical basis. Sentiment and momentum continue to be depressed, which could explain the resilience of stocks. Indeed, our Composite Momentum Indicator based on both the 13-week rate of change of the S&P 500 and traders’ sentiment lingers at the bottom of its historical distribution (Chart I-29). Moreover, the percentage of stocks above their 30-week moving average or at 52-week highs suggests that the average stock is still oversold (Chart I-30). Chart I-29Cyclical Momentum Is Not A Risk Yet Chart I-30The Median Stock Remains Oversold The problem for equity indices is that some sectors, such as tech, are very overbought on a near-term basis, which could invite profit-taking among the names that account for a disproportionate share of the index. If these sectors correct meaningfully, then the whole index would fall even if the median stocks barely vacillate. Nonetheless, all the forces listed in Section I suggest that the correction will not develop into a new down leg for the market. Energy stocks offer an attractive opportunity for investors, a view shared by our US Equity Strategy colleagues.1 The energy sector trades at its largest discount to the broad market on record and a weaker dollar normally lifts its relative performance (Chart I-31). Moreover, energy stocks have modestly outperformed the market since its March 23 bottom, despite the abyss into which oil prices tumbled. A pair trade is also available to investors. Healthcare and tech stocks have rallied in parabolic fashion relative to energy stocks. Oil may have capitulated on April 20 when the WTI May contract hit $-40/bbl. Storage capacity is essentially maxed out, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is set to restrict production from 12.3 million b/d to 8.5 million b/d, which will contribute generously to the 10 million bpd cut agreed by OPEC+. Countries such as Canada are also curtailing output, a move repeated among many oil producers. US shale firms, which have become marginal producers of oil, are also paring down their production. Shale producers are not done cutting, judging by both the decline in horizontal rig counts and WTI trading below most marginal costs (Chart I-32). The oil market will move away from its surplus position when the global economy restarts. Chart I-31An Opportunity In Energy Chart I-32Shale Production Will Fall Much Further   The slope of the oil curve confirms that the outlook for energy stocks is improving. On April 20, Brent and WTI hit their deepest contango on record, a development accentuated by the reflexive relationship between major oil ETFs and the price of the commodity itself. The structure of those ETFs was amended on April 21st, allowing a break in this reflexive relationship. The oil curve is again steepening, which after such a large contango often results in higher crude prices (Chart I-33). Meanwhile, net earnings revisions for the energy sector have become very depressed. Relative to the broad market, revisions are also weak but turning up. In this context, rising oil prices can easily lift energy stocks relative to the broad market. Chart I-33A Decreasing Contango Would Boost Oil Stocks Chart I-34Parabolic Moves Are Rarely Durable   A pair trade is also available to investors. Healthcare and tech stocks have rallied in parabolic fashion relative to energy stocks (Chart I-34). We constructed a global sector ranking based on the bottom-up valuation scores from BCA Research’s Equity Trading Strategy service. Based on this metric, energy stocks are attractively valued, while tech and healthcare are not (Chart I-35). A rebound in oil prices should prompt some portfolio rebalancing in favor of the energy sector.   Chart I-35A Bottom-Up Ranking For Sectors Valuations Finally, our US Equity Sector Strategy service also recommends investors overweight consumer discretionary stocks. This sector will benefit because robust household balance sheets will allow consumers to take advantage of low interest rates when the global economy recovers.7 Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 30, 2020 Next Report: May 28, 2020   II. The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart II-1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23rd, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart II-1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures Chart II-1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Instead, Chart II-2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.8 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart II-2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures Analysis by Bruegel provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table II-1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table II-1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries Table II-1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Chart II-3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.9 Chart II-3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart II-3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts II-1 – II-3 and Table II-1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart II-4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart II-4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart II-4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart II-5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). Chart II-5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart II-5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables II-2 and II-3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. Table II-2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions Table II-3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables II-2 and II-3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table II-2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Second, Table II-3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box II-1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box II-1 The “Bucket” Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The IMF “bucket” approach to estimating fiscal multiplier involves determining the multiplier that is likely to apply to a given country during “normal” circumstances, based on a set of structural characteristics associated with larger multipliers. This “normal” multiplier is then adjusted based on the following formula: M = MNT * (1+Cycle) * (1+Mon) Where M is the final multiplier estimate, MNT is the “normal times” multiplier derived from structural characteristics, Cycle is the cyclical factor ranging from −0.4 to +0.6, and Mon is the monetary policy stance factor ranging from 0 to 0.3. The Cycle factor is higher the more a country’s output gap is negative, and the Mon factor is higher the closer the economy is to the zero lower bound. Table II-B1 applies the IMF’s approach to the US, using the same structural score as the IMF presented in the note that described the approach. The table highlights that the approach suggests a US fiscal multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 given the maximum cycle adjustment proscribed by the rule, which we feel is reasonable given the unprecedented rise in US unemployment. We make no adjustment to the range for the zero lower bound. Table II-B1A Multiplier Estimate Of 1.1 – 1.6 Seems Reasonable For The US The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts II-1 - II-3 on pages 28-31. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. Chart II-6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart II-6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart II-6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table II-4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance. The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments. Table II-4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs Firms: On April 16th the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured. However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table II-5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The Table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. Table II-5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income Chart II-7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response. The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30th when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent. Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart II-7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.10 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart II-8 reproduces Chart II-3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart II-8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart II-8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Chart II-8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table II-6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.11 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table II-6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31st or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table II-6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart II-9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart II-9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart II-10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart II-10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart II-11). Chart II-11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort Chart II-12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart II-12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Chart II-13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Third, Chart II-13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we took a more positive stance on equities as both our valuation and monetary indicators had moved decisively into accommodative territory. While the global economy was set to weaken violently, the easing in our indicators suggested that stocks offered an adequate risk/reward ratio to take some risk. This judgment was correct. On a cyclical basis, the same factors that made us willing buyers of stocks remain broadly in place. Stocks are not as cheap as they were in late March, but monetary conditions have only eased further. Moreover, we are starting to get more clarity as to the re-opening of most Western economies because new reported cases of COVID-19 are peaking. Finally, the VIX has declined substantially but is nowhere near levels warning of an imminent risk to stocks and sentiment is still subdued. Tactically, equities are becoming somewhat overbought. However, this impression is mostly driven by the rebound in tech stocks and the strong performance posted by the healthcare sector. The median stock remains quite oversold. In this context, if the S&P 500 were to correct, we would not anticipate this correction to morph into a new down leg in the bear market that would result in new lows below the levels reached on March 23. For now, the most attractive strategy to take advantage of the supportive backdrop for stocks is to buy equities relative to bonds. In contrast to global bourses, government bonds are still massively overbought and trading at their largest premium to fair value since Q4 2008 and late 1985. Additionally, the vast sums of both monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy should lift inflation expectations and thus, bond yields. Real yields will likely remain at very low levels for an extended period of time as short rates are unlikely to rise anytime soon. The yield curve is therefore slated to steepen further. The dollar has stabilized since we last published but it has not meaningfully depreciated. On the one hand, the threat of an exploding twin deficit and a Fed working hard to address the dollar shortage and keep real rates in negative territory are very bearish for the dollar. But on the other hand, free-falling global growth and spiking policy uncertainty are highly bullish for the Greenback. A stalemate was thus the most likely outcome. However, we are getting closer to a rebound in growth in Q3, which means that the balance of forces will become an increasingly potent headwind for the expensive dollar. Thus, it remains appropriate to use rallies in the dollar to offload this currency. Finally, commodities continue to linger near their lows, creating a mirror image to the dollar. They are still very oversold and sentiment has greatly deteriorated, except for gold. Thus, if as we expect, the dollar will soon begin to soften, then commodities will appreciate in tandem. The move in oil prices was particularly dramatic this month. The oil curve is in deep contango and oil producers from Saudi Arabia to the US shale patch have begun cutting output. Therefore, oil is set to rally meaningfully as the global economy re-opens for business. The large balance sheet expansion by the Fed and other global central banks will only fuel that fire. 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 US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Gauging Fair Value," dated April 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see US Investment Strategy Special Report "How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 1: A 50-Year Bottom-Up Case Study," dated March 30, 2020 and US Investment Strategy Special Report "How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 2: It’s Complicated," dated April 6, 2020 available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM Domestic Bonds And Currencies," dated April 23, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Buying Opportunities & Worst-Case Scenarios," dated March 17, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Life At The Zero Bound," dated March 24, 2020 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Is The Bottom Already In?" dated April 21, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report "Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed's Anti-Virus Measures," dated April 14, 2020 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 “Bad deflation” reflects poor demand, which constrains corporate pricing power. “Good deflation” reflects productivity growth. Good deflation?? does not automatically extend to declining real profits and it is not linked with falling stock prices. The Roaring Twenties are an example of when “good deflation” resulted in a surging stock market. 7  Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril," dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8  Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 9  Please note that Chart II-3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 10 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, www.bcaresearch.com. 11 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.