High-Yield

Highlights Chart 1Low-Rated Junk Returns Are Lagging The story of bond markets in April is a story about the Federal Reserve. Traditional relationships have broken down and clear divisions have formed between sectors that are receiving Fed support and those that are not. For example, we would usually expect the riskiest (i.e. lowest-rated) pockets of the corporate bond market to perform worst in down markets and best in up markets. However, Fed intervention has disrupted this dynamic since the central bank announced a slew of emergency lending facilities on March 23. Since then, Baa and Ba rated corporates – sectors that benefit from Fed support – have behaved as usual, but lower-rated junk bonds – sectors that remain cut off from Fed support – have lagged (Chart 1). To take advantage of this disruption, we continue to advocate a strategy of favoring sectors that have attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. Appendix A of this report presents returns across a range of fixed income sectors since the Fed’s intervention began on March 23. We will update this table regularly going forward to keep tabs on the policy-driven disruptions to typical bond market behavior. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 455 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -871 bps. The average index spread tightened 70 bps on the month, and 171 bps since the Fed unveiled its corporate bond purchase programs on March 23. However, even after all that tightening, the index spread remains 113 bps wider than it was at the end of last year (Chart 2). Spreads are high relative to history and the investment grade corporate bond market benefits strongly from Fed support through the SMCCF and PMCCF.1 The sector therefore meets both of our criteria for purchase and we recommend an overweight allocation. One note of caution is that, as Chair Powell emphasized at last week’s FOMC press conference, the Fed has lending powers but not spending powers. That is, it can forestall bankruptcy for eligible firms by offering loans, but many firms will still see their credit ratings downgraded if they become saddled with debt. Already, Moody’s downgraded 219 issuers in March and upgraded only 19 (panel 4). Downgrades surely continued through April and will persist in the months ahead. With that in mind, there is value in favoring sectors and firms that are unlikely to face downgrade during the recession. As we explained in last week’s report, subordinate bank bonds are attractive in this regard.2 Banks remain very well capitalized and subordinate bonds offer greater expected returns than higher-rated senior bank debt.  Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3B High-Yield: Neutral High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 420 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -1308 bps. The average index spread tightened 136 bps on the month, and 356 bps since the Fed unveiled its corporate bond purchase programs on March 23 (Chart 3A). As noted on page 1, the junk bond market is experiencing unusually large return differentiation between credit tiers. This is because the Fed is offering support to the higher-rated segments of the market (Ba and some B), while the lower-rated tiers have been left out in the cold.3 We recommend that investors overweight Ba-rated junk bonds because that sector meets our criteria of offering elevated spreads compared to history and benefitting from Fed support. However, we will only recommend owning bonds rated B and lower if those sectors offer adequate compensation for expected default losses. On that note, Chart 3B shows the relationship between 12-month B-rated excess returns and the Default-Adjusted Spread. We define three scenarios for default losses: The mild scenario is a 6% default rate and 25% recovery rate, the moderate scenario is a 9% default rate and 25% recovery rate, the severe scenario is a 12% default rate and 25% recovery rate. Our base case expectation lies somewhere between the moderate and severe scenarios. Chart 3AHigh-Yield Market Overview Chart 3BB-Rated Excess Return Scenarios As Chart 3B makes plain, B-rated spreads don’t offer adequate compensation for our base case default loss scenario. The same hold true for credits rated Caa & lower.4 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -34 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 24 bps on the month, split between 18 bps of option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightening and a 6 bps reduction in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). Agency MBS benefit a great deal from Fed intervention. In fact, the Fed is aggressively purchasing the securities in the secondary market. However, we see better opportunities elsewhere in US fixed income. MBS spreads have already completely recovered from March’s sell off and spreads are low compared to other sectors. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is 70 bps below the Aa-rated corporate OAS (Chart 4), 82 bps below the Aaa-rated consumer ABS OAS, 135 bps below the Aaa-rated non-agency CMBS OAS and 48 bps below the Agency CMBS OAS. Moreover, the primary mortgage rate has still not declined very much despite this year’s huge fall in Treasury yields. This leaves open the possibility that the mortgage rate could come down in the coming months, leading to a renewed spike in refinancing activity. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 44 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -626 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 69 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -1434 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 151 bps in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -888 bps. Local Authority debt outperformed Treasuries by 98 bps in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -859 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 16 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -87 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 24 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -39 bps. USD-denominated Sovereign bonds didn’t rally alongside US corporate credit in April. Rather, spreads widened on the month since the sector only benefits modestly from Fed intervention via currency swap lines for a select few countries.5 The result of April’s underperformance is that Sovereign spreads are no longer very expensive compared to US corporate credit (Chart 5). A buying opportunity could emerge in USD-denominated Sovereign debt during the next few months, but we would want to see signs of emerging market currencies forming a bottom versus the dollar before making that call. As of now, EM currencies continue to weaken (bottom panel). Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6State & Local Governments Need Support Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 167 basis points in April, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -909 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The spreads between Aaa-rated municipal yields and Treasury yields tightened at the short end of the curve but widened significantly at the long end (Chart 6). Specifically, the 2-year spread tightened 18 bps on the month and the 5-year spread tightened 7 bps on the month. However, the 10-year, 20-year and 30-year spreads widened 6 bps, 32 bps and 34 bps, respectively. The divergence between spread changes at the short and long ends of the curve is once again the result of Fed intervention. The Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility initially promised to extend credit to state & local governments for a maximum maturity of 2 years. This was later extended to three years and several other changes were made to allow more municipalities to access the facility.6 We see a buying opportunity in municipal bonds at both long and short maturities. First and foremost, the Fed has already shown that it is willing to modify the scope of its lending facilities if some segments of the market are in distress, and the moral hazard argument against lending to state and local governments is weak when the Fed is already active in the corporate sector. Second, despite Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s posturing, Congress will likely authorize more direct aid to distressed state & local governments in the coming weeks.7 All in all, elevated spreads offer a compelling buying opportunity in municipal debt.   Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened in April. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 3 bps on the month to 44 bps. The 5-year/30-year slope flattened 6 bps on the month to 92 bps. One good thing about the fed funds rate being pinned at zero is that it greatly simplifies yield curve strategy. As we showed in a recent report, when the funds rate is at its lower bound the Treasury slope will trade directionally with yields.8 That is, the yield curve will steepen when yields rise and flatten when they fall. Therefore, if you want to put on a position that will profit from lower yields but that doesn’t increase the average duration of your portfolio, you can enter a duration-neutral flattener: long a 2/10 or 2/30 barbell and short the 5-year or 7-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. Or if, like us, you do not want to make a large duration bet but suspect that Treasury yields will be higher in 12 months, you can enter a duration-neutral steepener: long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell.9 In terms of value, the 5-year yield no longer trades deeply negative relative to the 2/10 and 2/30 barbells (Chart 7), though it remains somewhat expensive according to our models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 198 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -552 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 21 bps to 1.08%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 17 bps to 1.43%. As we noted in a recent report, March’s market crash created an extraordinary amount of long-run value in TIPS.10 For example, the 10-year and 5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rates are down to 1.08% and 0.68%, respectively. This means that a buy & hold position long TIPS and short the equivalent-maturity nominal Treasury will make money if average annual inflation is greater than 0.68% for the next five years, or greater than 1.08% for the next ten (Chart 8). This seems like a slam dunk. On a shorter time horizon, investors should also consider entering real yield curve steepeners.11 The recent collapse in oil prices drove down short-dated inflation expectations. This, in turn, caused short-maturity real yields to rise because the Fed’s zero-lower-bound policy has killed nominal yield volatility at the short-end of the curve (panels 4 & 5). During the last recession, the real yield curve steepened sharply once oil prices troughed in 2008. We think now is a good time to position for a similar outcome.  ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 117 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -203 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 51 bps on the month to 140 bps. It remains 100 bps above where it was at the beginning of the year. Aaa-rated consumer ABS meet both our criteria to own. Index spreads are elevated compared to typical historical levels and the sector benefits from Fed support through the TALF program.12 Specifically, TALF allows investors to borrow against Aaa ABS collateral at a rate of OIS + 125 bps. The current index yield remains above that level (Chart 9).13 The combination of attractive valuations and strong Fed support makes this sector a buy. Non-Agency CMBS: Overweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in April, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -789 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 19 bps on the month to 190 bps. Aaa-rated CMBS actually outperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 100 bps in April, in contrast to the lower credit tiers, which lagged. Once again, the divergence between Aaa and lower credit tier performance is driven by the Fed. Aaa-rated CMBS benefit from TALF, while lower-rated securities do not.14 In fact, TALF borrowers can access the facility at a rate of OIS + 125 bps. The index yield remains well above this level (Chart 10).   The combination of attractive valuation and strong Fed support makes Aaa-rated non-agency CMBS a buy. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 144 basis points in April, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -221 bps. The average index spread tightened 27 bps on the month to 103 bps, still well above typical historical levels (panel 4). The Fed is supporting the Agency CMBS market by directly purchasing the securities as part of its Agency MBS purchase program. The combination of strong Fed support and elevated spreads makes the sector a high conviction overweight. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of May 1, 2020) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of May 1, 2020) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 30 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 30 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of May 1, 2020)​​​​​​​   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For a detailed description of the Fed’s different emergency facilities please see US Investment Strategy/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 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For a more detailed description of the Fed’s emergency lending facilities please see US Investment Strategy/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 4 For a more detailed analysis of Default-Adjusted Spreads by credit tier please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Is The Bottom Already In?”, dated April 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 The complete list of countries, and more detailed analysis of the swap lines, is found in US Investment Strategy/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 For more details on the MLF please see US Investment Strategy/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 7 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update)”, dated April 24, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Life At The Zero Bound”, dated March 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 The rationale for why barbell positions profit from curve flattening and bullet positions profit from curve steepening is found in US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buying Opportunities & Worst-Case Scenarios”, dated March 17, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 For more details on this recommendation please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 For details of TALF please see US Investment Strategy/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 13 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Is The Bottom Already In?”, dated April 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 14 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Is The Bottom Already In?”, dated April 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Highlights ECB: The ECB disappointed markets last week who expected an increase in the size of its asset purchase schemes given the recent increase of Italian bond yields. For now, the central bank remains focused on preventing a European credit crunch through increased use of bank funding measures like TLTROs – although a renewed selloff in BTPs would likely change the minds of the “Italy hawks” on the ECB Governing Council. Euro Area High-Yield: Valuations for euro area junk bonds improved somewhat during the COVID-19 selloff, but spreads do not offer much protection from the coming surge in default losses. Remain underweight euro area high-yield corporates in global fixed income portfolios. Feature Chart 1Will Growth Trump Liquidity For Euro Area Junk Bonds? Over the past week, investors heard from the three major developed market central banks – the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ). The Fed and BoJ did little to seriously impact financial markets, offering only strengthened forward guidance on already hyper-easy policy settings along with some expansion of existing asset purchase programs (involving municipal bonds for the Fed, JGBs and Japanese corporate bonds for the BoJ). The ECB was the most interesting of the three, because of what was NOT done – namely, an increase in the amount of asset purchases – and what it implies about the policy debate within the central bank on how to deal with Italy. The hit to the euro area economy from the COVID-19 lockdowns has been sharp and brutal, pushing the entire region quickly into deep recession (Chart 1). Given such a severe hit to growth, and with policy interest rates already at zero (or even negative), the only avenue for the ECB to deliver more stimulus is through expanding its balance sheet through asset purchases and liquidity provision to banks. This makes the ECB’s next moves on its balance sheet critical for determining the future path of European risk assets like equities and high-yield corporate bonds – the latter of which we discuss later in this report. A Cautious Next Step From The ECB Chart 2An Unprecedented Economic Collapse The need for the ECB to do something at last week’s monetary policy meeting was obvious. Real GDP for the entire region is estimated to have contracted -3.8% on a year-over-year basis in the first quarter of the year. At the country level, large declines occurred in France (-5.8%), Italy (-4.7%) and Spain (-5.2%) that were far greater than seen during the 2009 recession. The decline was broad-based across industries as well, with the European Commission’s (EC) business confidence indices collapsing in April for manufacturing, services, retail and construction (Chart 2). The bottom has also fallen out on the EC price expectations indices, suggesting that outright deflation across the euro area is just around the corner. The ECB last week provided what were called “alternative scenarios” for the impact of COVID-19 on euro area growth. We presume these are meant to be an alternative to the most recent set of ECB economic projections that were published in March that now look wildly optimistic given the COVID-19 lockdowns. The revised scenarios now call for a real GDP contraction in 2020 of anywhere from -5% to -12%, with only a partial recovery of those losses in 2021.1 The central bank also provided an estimate of the output loss by industry from COVID-19 related lockdowns (Table 1) – a staggering -60% for retail, transportation, accommodation and food services and -40% for manufacturing and construction. Table 1The Lockdown Has Been Painful For Europe Against this horrendous growth and inflation backdrop, with forecasts being slashed, the expectation was that the ECB would ramp up the size of its bond buying programs to try and ease financial conditions further. That would help cushion the growth downturn and attempt to put a floor under collapsing inflation expectations (Chart 3). Yet at last week’s monetary policy meeting, the ECB announced the following: No changes in policy interest rates No increase in the size of the Asset Purchase Program (APP) from the existing €120bn or Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) from the existing €750bn For existing targeted long-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) between June 2020 and June 2021, interest rates were lowered by -25bps A new long-term refinancing operation for euro area banks was introduced called the Pandemic Emergency Long Term Refinancing Operation (PELTRO), which would offer liquidity to euro area banks on a monthly basis until December, at an interest rate of -0.25%. The increased use of LTROs was an easier way for the ECB Governing Council to avoid a potential credit crunch if euro area banks become more risk averse. The ECB clearly wants to take no chances on banks reining in loan activity. The latest ECB Bank Lending Survey, released just two days before last week’s policy meeting, showed a modest tightening of standards for bank loans to businesses in the first quarter of 2020. This was most visible in Germany and Italy, with France actually showing a slight decline in the net percentage of banks tightening lending standards (Chart 4). The survey also showed that euro area banks expected a significant net easing of lending standards in response to the loan guarantees and liquidity support measures announced by European governments to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns. Chart 3Expanding The Balance Sheet Is The Only Tool The ECB Has Left Chart 4The ECB Wants To Avoid A Credit Crunch With bank lending growth across the entire euro area having already increased to 4.9% on a year-over-year basis in March, the fastest pace in two years, the ECB clearly wants to take no chances on banks reining in loan activity - even if those loans are merely for stressed companies tapping existing credit lines, or taking advantage of government loan guarantees to minimize layoffs in a deep recession. Another surge in Italian bond yields in the next few months would likely trigger an increase in the size of the PEPP. However, there was likely an additional reason why the ECB chose the LTRO route over ramping up asset purchases – internal political divisions over Italy. Chart 5Italian Financial Stability Remains Critical For The ECB There remain some on the ECB Governing Council that do not wish to keep buying more BTPs, thus giving Italy a blank check to run even larger budget deficits. The unique nature of the COVID-19 outbreak has somewhat loosened those biases against the highly indebted countries of southern Europe, as evidenced by the inclusion of Greek bonds in the PEPP shopping list. Yet there are still many within the ECB, and within the governments of the “hard money” countries of the euro area, who would prefer to see Italy get monetary support for greater deficit spending through ECB vehicles with conditionality like Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). Given these internal divisions over Italy, an increase in the size of the existing asset purchase schemes will only take place if there is a major increase in Italian risk premiums that threatens the financial stability of the entire euro area. On that front, risk indicators like the BTP-Bund spread and credit default spreads on Italian banks have risen over the past month, but remain well below the stressed levels witnessed during the Global Financial Crisis and the European Debt Crisis (Chart 5). Additionally, Italian bank stocks have actually been outperforming their euro area peers since early 2019, while the Italy-Germany spread curve is not inverted (2-year spreads higher than 10yr spreads) as occurred in 2011 when investors feared Italy would crash out of the euro. With Italian government yields still at relatively low and manageable levels, even as the highly-indebted Italian government has stated that its budget deficit will surge to -10% of GDP to provide stimulus to a virus-ravaged economy, there is no pressure on the ECB to increase the size of the PEPP that was just announced less than two months ago. Yet even with all the internal divisions, another surge in Italian bond yields in the next few months would likely trigger an increase in the size of the PEPP to prevent a broader tightening of euro area financial conditions. For this reason, we continue to recommend a strategic (6-12 months) overweight stance on Italian government bonds within global fixed income portfolios. Bottom Line: The ECB disappointed markets last week who expected an increase in the size of its asset purchase schemes given the recent increase of Italian bond yields. For now, the central bank remains focused on preventing a European credit crunch through increased use of bank funding measures like TLTROs – although a renewed selloff in BTPs would likely change the minds of the “Italy hawks” on the ECB Governing Council. A Quick Look At Euro Area High-Yield Valuation We recently upgraded our recommended investment stance on euro area investment grade corporate bonds to neutral.2 This shift was based on the ECB increasing the amount of its corporate bond purchases as part of its COVID-19 monetary easing measures, coming after the Fed announced its own new programs to buy US investment grade corporates. With the major central banks providing direct support to higher quality corporates, the left side of the return distribution for those bonds eligible for these purchase programs has effectively been reduced. This warrants a higher weighting for those bonds in investor portfolios. For high-yield corporates, the story is more nuanced. Both the Fed and ECB have announced that investment grade bonds purchased in their bond buying programs, which are then subsequently downgraded to below investment grade, can stay on the balance sheet of those programs. This makes Ba-rated junk bonds – the highest credit tier below investment grade – a relatively more attractive bet within the overall high-yield universe, both in the US and Europe. Although the lack of a direct central bank bid still makes high-yield corporates a riskier bet in a recessionary environment where default losses will surely increase. This means rather than just “buying what the central banks are buying”, we must rely on more traditional metrics to determine if high-yield bonds offer value. To evaluate the attractiveness of euro area high-yield corporates, we use three different approaches that use relative value to other credit markets, or more intrinsic value based on potential credit losses. Relative spreads vs. euro area investment grade One way to assess the value of euro area high-yield is to compare its credit spread to that of higher-rated euro area investment grade corporate bonds. Since movements in both spreads are highly correlated, as they both benefit from accelerating euro area economic growth (and vice versa), any change in spreads between the two could represent a relative value opportunity. Currently, the option-adjusted spread (OAS) of the euro area high-yield benchmark index (635bps) is 449bps over that of the investment grade index (186bps), using Bloomberg Barclays index data (Chart 6). While this is a relatively wide spread differential for the years since the 2008 financial crisis, it is not a particularly large gap during a recession that is likely to be deeper than the 2009 downturn. The same argument holds when looking at the ratio of the euro area high-yield OAS to the investment grade OAS, which is only at average levels for the post crisis period (3rd panel). 12-month breakeven spreads One of our favorite credit valuation tools is the 12-month breakeven spread, which measures the amount of spread widening over a one-year horizon that would make the total return of a corporate bond equal to that of a duration-matched government bond. We apply that calculation to data for an entire spread product sector, like investment grade or high-yield, to determine a breakeven spread for that sector. We then look at the percentile ranks of the breakeven spread versus its own history to determine if that particular fixed income sector looks relatively attractive. Rather than just “buying what the central banks are buying”, we must rely on more traditional metrics to determine if high-yield bonds offer value. On that basis, euro area high-yield corporates, across all credit tiers, offer somewhat attractive spreads, with 12-month breakevens in the upper half of the historical distribution (Chart 7). US high-yield, by comparison, offers far more attractive spreads with 12-month breakevens in the upper quartile of their historical distribution across all credit tiers. Only the riskiest Caa-rated bonds are in the top 25% of the distribution in the euro area (Chart 8). Chart 6In The Euro Area, HY Is Not That Cheap Versus IG Chart 712-Month Breakeven Spreads For Euro Area HY Are Now More Attractive ... Chart 8… But Not Versus US High-Yield The overall attractiveness of US high-yield versus euro area equivalents can also be seen when comparing the benchmark index yields in common currency terms. For the overall indices, euro area junk bond yields, hedged into USD dollars, offer a yield of 7.8%, virtually equal to the 8.0% yield in the US (Chart 9), although more material differences do exist within credit tiers. Chart 9A Comparison Of Junk Bond Yields In The Euro Area & The US Default-adjusted spreads The other metric that we use to assess the value of high-yield corporate bonds is default-adjusted spreads. This measure takes the high-yield index OAS and subtracts credit losses to determine an “excess” spread. We look at the current default-adjusted spread versus its long-run average to determine if high-yield spreads offer an attractive valuation cushion relative to expected credit losses. To determine the credit losses, we need the default rate, and the recovery rate given default, for the overall high-yield market. For defaults, we will use the output of our euro area default rate model (Chart 10). The model uses four variables: lending standards for businesses from the ECB bank lending survey, high-yield ratings downgrades as a share of all rating actions, euro area real GDP growth, and the median debt-to-equity ratio for a sample of issuers in the euro area high-yield space. All the variables are advanced such that the model produces a one-year-ahead forecast of expected high-yield defaults.3 Our high-yield model is projecting that the euro area default rate will climb to 11% by the end of 2020, before declining to 8% mid-2021 as the euro area economy recovers from the 2020 recession. For the euro recovery rate, we are using a range based on the historical experience during recessions (30%) and recoveries (45%). Using our default rate model projection, and that range of recovery rates, we can produce a range of euro area default-adjusted spreads. Euro area high-yield spreads do not offer much of a spread cushion to absorb expected default losses over the next year. Thus, euro area junk bonds are expensive. In Chart 11, we show the history of the euro area default adjusted spread. We have added the long run average (358bps) and the +/1 standard deviation of the spread. Spreads at or lower than -1 standard deviation are considered expensive (i.e. the high-yield index spread is too low relative to credit losses), and vice versa. The shaded box in the bottom right corner of the chart represents our forecasted default-adjusted spread for the next year. Chart 10Our Model Says The Euro Area Default Rate Will Surpass 10% Chart 11Euro Area HY Default-Adjusted Spreads Do Not Offer Compelling Value Chart 12An Aggressive Overweight Stance On Risk Assets Is Still Not Warranted Our projected spread range over the next twelve months is 218bps to -112bps, well below the long-run average and at the low end of the historical distribution. We conclude from this analysis that current euro area high-yield spreads do not offer much of a spread cushion to absorb expected default losses over the next year. Thus, euro area junk bonds are expensive. Given the lack of a compelling valuation argument under all our metrics, we are leaving our recommended investment stance on euro area high-yield bonds at underweight. We continue to focus our recommended global spread product allocations on overweights in markets where there is direct and explicit support from policymaker purchase programs: US investment grade bonds with maturity of less than five years, US Ba-rated high-yield bonds, and UK investment grade corporates. This selectively overweight investment stance on global credit is warranted from a risk management perspective, as well. Our “Pro-Risk Checklist” of indicators that would lead us to recommend a more aggressive stance on risk assets in general, and spread product in particular, is still flashing a cautious message (Chart 12). The US dollar continues to strengthen (exacerbating global deflation and dollar funding pressures); the VIX index of US equity volatility has fallen below our threshold of 40, but not by much; and the number of new global (ex-China) COVID-19 cases is showing mixed results, falling in the US and Italy but increasing elsewhere. Bottom Line: Valuations for euro area junk bonds improved somewhat during the COVID-19 selloff, but spreads do not offer much protection from the coming surge in default losses. Remain underweight euro area high-yield corporates in global fixed income portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The alternative ECB growth forecasts can be found here: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/focus/2020/html/ecb.ebbox202003_01~767f86ae95.en.html 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying", dated April 14, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 For real GDP growth, we use Bloomberg consensus forecasts for the next four quarters in the model. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Real Yield Curve: Last week’s negative oil print could signal the peak in deflationary sentiment for this cycle. It’s a good time for bond investors to enter real yield curve steepeners. Buy a short-maturity real yield (1-year or 2-year) and sell a long-maturity real yield (10-year or 30-year). High-Yield: High-yield bond spreads are much too tight relative to the VIX and ratings migration. This is justified for Ba-rated issuers that can tap the Fed’s emergency programs. However, B-rated and below spreads look vulnerable. Investors should overweight Ba-rated junk bonds and underweight the B-rated and below credit tiers. Bank Bonds: US bond investors should overweight subordinate bank bonds within an allocation to investment grade corporate credit. Subordinate bank bonds are Baa-rated and thus offer reasonably high spreads. But unlike other Baa-rated bonds, banks should avoid ratings downgrades during this cycle. Feature Oil was the big mover in financial markets last week, with the WTI price dropping briefly into negative territory on the day before expiry of the May futures contract.1  Bond markets didn’t react much to the negative oil price (Chart 1), but this doesn’t mean that the energy market is unimportant for yields. On the contrary, the oil price often sends important signals about the near-term outlook for inflation, a key input for bond investors. Chart 1Negative Oil Didn't Shock The Bond Market A Bond Market Trade Inspired By Negative Oil The Fisher Equation is the formula that relates nominal yields, real yields and inflation expectations. In its simplest form the Fisher equation is: Nominal Yield = Real Yield + Inflation Expectations When applying this equation to the act of bond yield forecasting we find it helpful to note that both the nominal yield and inflation expectations have specific valuation anchors. The Federal Reserve sets the valuation anchor for nominal yields because it controls the overnight nominal interest rate. If you enter a long position in a nominal Treasury security and hold to maturity you will make money versus a position in cash if the average overnight nominal interest rate turns out to be lower than the nominal bond yield at the time of purchase. The oil price often sends important signals about the near-term outlook for inflation, a key input for bond investors. Similarly, inflation expectations are anchored by the actual inflation rate. If you enter a long position in inflation protection and hold to maturity you will make money if actual inflation turns out to be higher than the rate that was embedded in bond prices at the time of purchase.2 Turning to real yields, we see why the Fisher Equation is important. Real yields have no obvious valuation anchor. This means that the best forecasting technique is often to: (1)   Use our known valuation anchors (the fed funds rate and inflation) to forecast the nominal yield and inflation expectations. (2)  Use the Fisher Equation to back-out a fair value for real yields. With all that said, let’s apply this framework to today’s bond market in light of last week’s dramatic oil price moves. Inflation Compensation The cost of inflation protection tracks the oil price, more so at the front end of the curve than at the long end. This makes sense given that recent oil price trends tell us a fair amount about the outlook for inflation over the next year but very little about the outlook for inflation over the next 10 or 30 years. The inflation market didn’t react much to oil’s dip into negative territory last week, but this year’s broader drop in the WTI price from above $50 to below $20 had a big impact on TIPS breakeven inflation rates and CPI swap rates, particularly at short maturities (Chart 2). In fact, consistent with expectations for a very low oil price, the bond market is now pricing-in deflation over the next two years. Chart 2Bond Market Priced For Deflation Nominal Yields The Fed’s zero interest rate policy is having a profound effect on nominal bond yield volatility. Because the consensus investor expectation is that the Fed will keep rates pinned near zero for a long time, almost irrespective of economic outcomes, even a significant market event like a plunge in the oil price will do very little to move nominal bond yields. During the last zero-lower-bound period, nominal bond yield volatility fell across the entire yield curve but fell much more at the short end of the curve than at the long end (Chart 3). The same phenomenon will re-occur during the current zero-lower-bound episode. Chart 3The Zero Lower Bound Crushes Nominal Bond Yield Volatility Real Yields Using the Fisher Equation, we can deduce how real yields must move given changes in inflation expectations and nominal bond yields. With the Fed ensuring that short-maturity nominal yields remain stable, the recent decline in oil and inflation expectations caused short-dated real yields to jump (Chart 4). Long-maturity real yields remain low because (a) the shock to inflation expectations was smaller at the long-end of the curve and (b) the Fed’s forward rate guidance doesn’t suppress nominal bond yield volatility as much for long maturities. Chart 4There's Value In Short-Maturity Real Yields Investment Implications If we assume that last week’s -$37.60 WTI print will mark the cyclical trough in oil prices, US bond investors can profit by implementing real yield curve steepeners.3  Short-dated real yields will fall as oil and short-dated inflation expectations recover and nominal yields remain stable. In this scenario, real yields are more likely to rise at the long-end of the curve, given the greater volatility in long-dated nominal yields and the fact that long-maturity inflation expectations are not as depressed. Looking at the 2008 episode as a comparable, we see that the cost of inflation protection bottomed around the same time as the trough in oil, and about 7 months before the trough in 12-month headline CPI (Chart 5). After that trough, with the Fed keeping short-dated nominal rates pinned near zero, the inflation compensation curve flattened and the real yield curve steepened. Chart 5Initiate Real Yield Curve Steepeners Bottom Line: Last week’s negative oil print could signal the peak in deflationary sentiment for this cycle. It’s a good time for bond investors to enter real yield curve steepeners. Buy a short-maturity real yield (1-year or 2-year) and sell a long-maturity real yield (10-year or 30-year). Poor Junk Bond Valuations Illustrated In recent reports we have been advising investors to own spread products that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support.4 This includes investment grade corporate bonds and Ba-rated high-yield bonds, but not junk bonds rated B or below. In past reports we also showed that B-rated and below junk spreads don’t adequately compensate investors for likely default losses. But this week, we want to quickly illustrate that junk spreads are trading too tight even compared to other common coincident indicators. Specifically, we zero in on the VIX and ratings migration. In 2008, the cost of inflation protection bottomed around the same time as the trough in oil, and about 7 months before the trough in 12-month headline CPI. Charts 6A, 7A and 8A show the historical relationship between the VIX and Ba, B and Caa junk spreads. In all three cases, spreads are well below levels that have been historically consistent with the current reading from the VIX. Charts 6B, 7B and 8B show the historical relationship between the monthly Moody’s rating downgrade/upgrade ratio and Ba, B and Caa spreads. These charts tell a similar story. In fact, March saw nearly 12 times as many ratings downgrades as upgrades, the third highest monthly ratio since 1986. With more downgrades coming in the months ahead, it is apparent that junk spreads are stretched. Chart 6ABa Spreads & VIX Chart 6BBa Spreads & Ratings Chart 7AB Spreads & VIX Chart 7BB Spreads & Ratings Chart 8ACaa Spreads & VIX Chart 8BCaa Spreads & Ratings Relatively tight spreads are probably justified in the Ba space where firms will benefit from the Federal Reserve’s Main Street Lending facilities.5 However, B-rated and below securities have mostly been left out in the cold. We see high odds of spread widening for those credit tiers.  Bottom Line: High-yield bond spreads are much too tight relative to the VIX and ratings migration. This is justified for Ba-rated issuers that can tap the Fed’s emergency programs. However, B-rated and below spreads look vulnerable. Investors should overweight Ba-rated junk bonds and underweight the B-rated and below credit tiers. Subordinate Bank Debt Is A Good Bet The Fed’s decision to exclude bank bonds from its primary and secondary market corporate bond purchases complicates our investment strategy. We want to focus on sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support, but should we carve out an exception for bank bonds? Bank Bonds Are A Defensive Sector First, we note that banks are a defensive corporate bond sector. This is due to bank debt’s relatively high credit rating and low duration. Notice that banks outperformed the rest of the corporate index when spreads widened in March, but have lagged the index by 131 bps since spreads peaked on March 23 (Chart 9). Bank equities don’t exhibit the same behavior and have in fact steadily underperformed the S&P 500 since the start of the year (Chart 9, bottom 2 panels). Chart 9Bank Bonds Are Defensive... However, if we consider senior and subordinate bank debt separately, a different picture emerges (Chart 10). Senior bank bonds behave defensively, as described above, but the lower-rated/higher duration subordinate bank bond index is more cyclical. It has outperformed the corporate benchmark by 316 bps since March 23 (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 10...Except Subordinate Debt The Value In Bank Bonds Despite being a defensive sector, senior bank bonds offer attractive risk-adjusted value. The average spread of the senior bank index is 18 bps above the spread offered by the equivalently-rated (A) corporate bond benchmark. Further, the senior bank index has lower average duration than the A-rated benchmark, making the sector very attractive on a per-unit-of-duration basis (Chart 11A). Chart 11ASenior Bank Bond Valuation Chart 11BSubordinate Bank Bond Valuation ​​​​​​​Turning to subordinate bank bonds, risk-adjusted value looks only fair compared to other equivalently-rated (Baa) corporate bonds (Chart 11B). However, in absolute terms the subordinate bank index offers a spread of 246 bps, compared to a spread of 178 bps on the senior bank index. Downgrade Risk Is Minimal We think investors should overweight subordinate bank bonds for two reasons. First, we think the Fed’s aggressive policy response means that investment grade corporate bond spreads, in general, have already peaked. We would expect defensive senior bank bonds to underperform in this environment of spread tightening, even though they offer attractive risk-adjusted value. Subordinate bank bonds should outperform the index in this environment, even if other Baa-rated sectors offer better value. Second, other Baa-rated corporate bond sectors offer elevated spreads because downgrade risk remains high. The Fed’s facilities will prevent default for investment grade firms, but many Baa-rated issuers will end up taking on a lot of debt to avoid bankruptcy and will get downgraded. We think banks are insulated from this downgrade risk. Even in the Fed's "Severely Adverse Scenario", three of banks' four main capital ratios remain above pre-GFC levels. Chart 12 shows the four main capital ratios calculated for US banks, and the dashed line shows the minimum value the Fed estimates that those ratios will hit under the “Severely Adverse Scenario” from the 2019 Stress Test. Three of the four ratios would remain above pre-crisis levels, and the Tier 1 Leverage Ratio would be only a touch lower. Chart 12Banks Have Huge Capital Buffers Further, our US Investment Strategy service observes that the large banks had sufficient earnings in the first quarter to significantly ramp up loan loss provisions without taking any capital hit at all.6 Our US Investment Strategy team believes that, as long as the shutdown doesn’t last more than six months, the big banks will have sufficient earnings power to absorb loan losses this year, without having to mark down their capital ratios, which in any case are extremely high. Bottom Line: US bond investors should overweight subordinate bank bonds within an allocation to investment grade corporate credit. Subordinate bank bonds are Baa-rated and thus offer reasonably high spreads. But unlike other Baa-rated bonds, banks should avoid ratings downgrades during this cycle. In short, subordinate bank debt looks like a reasonably safe way to capture high-beta exposure to the investment grade corporate bond market.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For a more detailed explanation of the WTI price’s shocking move please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Alert, “WTI In Free Fall”, dated April 20, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 2 An example of a long position in inflation protection would be buying the 5-year TIPS and shorting the equivalent-maturity nominal Treasury security. 3 Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service’s view is that the WTI oil price will average ~$60 to $65 in 2021. For further details please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “US Storage Tightens, Pushing WTI Lower”, dated April 16, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Is The Bottom Already In?”, dated April 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on the Fed’s different emergency facilities please see US Investment Strategy / 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 Please see US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Big Bank Beige Book, April 2020”, dated April 20, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Why is the gap between the stock market and the economy so wide?: It is well established that stocks can diverge considerably from fundamentals in the near term, but lately it is as if the stock tables and the front-page headlines are from entirely different newspapers. It may be because the virus poses much less of a threat to the owners of equities than the general populace: More affluent households are more readily able to work from home and to practice social distancing. They also have access to better medical care. With the S&P 500 having hit technical resistance, however, the gap may be nearing its upper limit: Large-caps have run in place since retracing half of their peak-to-trough losses, and the next Fibonacci resistance level is only another 5% higher. Where are the shoddy loans?: During the expansion, corporations were able to borrow on prodigally easy terms. If banks aren't holding the loans, who is? Feature That’s New York’s future, not mine – “Hold On” (Reed) For someone who entered the business as a sell-side trader, it is a matter of course that prices can diverge from fundamentals. The trading desk had a one-day horizon, and the traders necessarily made their way on price signals while barely considering fundamentals. Though the junior traders had been exposed to dividend discount models at their fancy colleges, the ones who lasted recognized they weren’t relevant to the desk’s mission. Trading the daily flow required accepting that new news can have a dramatically larger effect on stocks in the here and now than it would on the lifetime stream of earnings available to common shareholders. Long-run fair value might solely turn on the fundamentals, but animal spirits hold sway over any given tick. The sudden stop imposed by stay-at-home orders has made backward-looking economic data nearly irrelevant, but the sizable upward surprises in unemployment claims should not be ignored. Our Global Investment Strategy colleagues showed last week just how difficult it is for even severe near-term shocks to materially alter the present value of aggregate future earnings.1 Furthermore, the market effects of negative earnings shocks are inherently self-limiting at the margin because they tend to be accompanied by lower interest rates, driving up the equity risk premium and making stocks more attractive relative to “safe” fixed income alternatives. Bear markets coincide with recessions, though, as near-term earnings expectations are revised lower and animal spirits droop (Chart 1). Given that the recession just begun is expected to be the worst since the Great Depression, one would expect that equities would be stumbling in search of a bottom as investors remained fearful of taking on risk. Chart 1Joined At The Hip They have instead been acting like the S&P 500 found that bottom on March 23rd, when the index completed a 35% peak-to-trough decline in just 23 sessions. It then proceeded to gain 28.5% over the next eighteen sessions. Some retracement is to be expected after a sudden, sharp move, and the S&P 500 has only recovered half of the ground that it lost. It certainly priced in a great deal of bad news on the way down, but the data have been worsening, and investors have been forced to give up on the notion of a swift economic recovery. Why are stocks rising when economic projections are being downwardly revised and good virus news has been few and far between? We ourselves have been barely glancing at backward-looking economic data releases that merely confirm the well-understood fact that draconian social distancing measures have wrung much of the life out of the economy. The degree to which job losses have outrun consensus forecasts stands out nonetheless. Aggregate initial unemployment claims over the last five weeks have exceeded consensus expectations by 5.5 million (Table 1). Even though the forecasts have caught up to the situation on the ground, the claims data suggest that unemployment is now pushing 20%, a worst-case-scenario level that is far above the first forecasts that incorporated the effects of stay-at-home orders. Claims may well have peaked, but they’re still an order of magnitude higher than normal, and they are not finished exerting upward pressure on the unemployment rate. Table 1Job Losses Have Been Worse Than Expected Meanwhile, COVID-19 data have yet to provoke much optimism. The rate of US infections has yet to come down to Italy’s level (Chart 2), and hopes that remdesivir might prove to be a wonder drug were dashed late last week. Clients are increasingly asking us why the stock market is traveling such a dramatically different path than the economy and the virus. How could stocks have plunged at a record rate as the coronavirus drew a bead on the United States, but surged after crippling social distancing measures were put in place? Chart 2The US Has Fallen Behind Italy's Pace A Tale Of Two Boroughs The simplest answer is that the Fed’s response was swifter and more far-reaching than expected. Ditto Congressional actions, and we expect that DC will continue to deploy its fiscal firepower to try to shield households and businesses from the worst of the effects of the anti-virus measures. We believe the monetary and fiscal efforts will make a difference, and do not think it’s a coincidence that equities turned around the week of March 23rd, which began with the Fed’s rollout of a formidable new arsenal and ended with the passage of the CARES Act. But the market action has not accounted for the shift from expectations of a V-bottom to talk of Us, Ls and Ws. Two articles published a week apart in The New Yorker vividly illustrated a demographic virus gap. The first looked at COVID-19 from the perspective of financial professionals at hedge funds and other sophisticated investment aeries.2 Although the views of the investors in the profile shifted with the tide of the incoming data, they were generally of the mind that the health threat was being dramatically overhyped. One retired hedge fund manager boasted about his and his family’s non-stop early March air travel between New York, London and a Wyoming ski resort. The second article followed an emergency room resident at Elmhurst, a publicly funded hospital in a working-class Queens neighborhood, which has been described as the epicenter of the outbreak in several local media reports.3 “‘It’s become very clear to me what a socioeconomic disease this is,’” he said. “‘Short-order cooks, doormen, cleaners, deli workers – that is the patient population here. Other people were at home, but my patients were still working. A few weeks ago, when they were told to socially isolate, they still had to go back to an apartment with ten other people. Now they are in our cardiac room dying.’” Stock ownership is largely reserved to the affluent, with the top percentile of households owning 53% of equities as of the end of 2019, and the rest of the top decile owning another 35% (Chart 3). For households in the top decile, maintaining a healthy distance from the virus isn’t that difficult. Knowledge workers equipped with a laptop and a reliable internet connection can work from anywhere, unlike the Elmhurst patients in low-skilled service positions who have to work onsite. The tonier precincts of Manhattan feel nearly deserted, with their residents having decamped for second homes in lower-density areas. Perhaps it's because the Fed's attempts to shore up the economy have far more personal relevance for investors than the spread of the virus. There are no comprehensive data series on virus infections and outcomes by zip code, which would facilitate analysis of the link between household wealth and COVID-19, but New York state reports age-adjusted fatality rates in four racial/ethnic categories. In New York state ex-New York city, which has lesser extremes of wealth than the city itself, the cross-category disparities are striking (Chart 4). Race/ethnicity is far from an ideal proxy for inequality, but it is fair to conclude that financial market participants have a sound basis for being more sanguine about the virus than the overall population. Assuming that more affluent households will be able to remain out of the virus’ reach, the dichotomy can persist for as long as the economic impacts do not become so bad that investors cannot reasonably look through them. Chart 3Demographics Drive Stock Ownership ... Chart 4... And COVID-19 Fatalities Technical Resistance Back on the trading desk, technical analysis was the go-to tool for traders pricing large blocks of stock in real time. Following sizable moves, the Fibonacci sequence provided a popular method for assessing how far a stock might retrace its steps before resuming its course. The most widely used Fibonacci retracement levels are 38% and 62%, and 50%, a round number exactly between the two, has also become an anticipated stopping point. From the February 19 closing high of 3,386.15 to the March 23 closing low of 2,237.40, the S&P 500 lost 1,148.75 points. The 38%, 50% and 62% retracement levels are 2,673.93, 2,811.78 and 2,949.63, respectively. The S&P paused at the 38% level for just two days before breaking through it decisively, but it’s had more trouble making its way through 2,812, failing to hold above it for more than a day or two at a time (Chart 5). Should it escape 2,812, the 2,950 level waits just 5% higher. Chart 5Fibonacci Retracement Levels For The S&P 500 We are fundamental investors who do not get hung up on technical levels, though they can become self-fulfilling prophecies if enough participants are following them. Given the popularity of Fibonacci retracement, it is possible that a critical mass of short-term investors may view 2,812 and 2,950 as preferred levels for exiting long positions in the S&P. Our bigger near-term concern is that it is hard to see US equities making much more headway while the virus and ongoing distancing measures have the potential to cause investors to revise their fundamental expectations lower and/or lose a little bit of their policy-fueled nerve. Who's Left Holding The Bag? Multiple commentators have expressed alarm at the post-2008 increase in corporate debt, especially given anecdotal reports that lending covenants had been loosened dramatically. If the banks don’t hold the debt, as we’ve argued, who does, and could a wave of virus-inspired defaults cause larger problems in the financial system? The Fed’s fourth quarter Flow of Funds report, published last month, provides some clues, but does not answer the question definitively. As we saw in higher frequency data on aggregate banking system exposures, bank loans to nonfinancial corporations grew modestly (3.2% annualized) since December 31, 2008. Nonfinancial corporations borrowed in the bond market at double that rate (6.2% annualized). Foreign loans, powered by near doubling in 2017 and 2018, grew at an annualized 13.4% pace, and are four times as large as they were at the end of 2008. Finance company loans have shrunk, and trade payables grew at a modest 2% rate. (Chart 6). Chart 6Debt Risks Are Pretty Well Diffused Publicly available data from Preqin on the capital raised by direct lending funds suggests that their impact has been modest, accounting for only about a quarter of outstanding bank loans if every dollar they’ve raised is currently deployed. Demand for leveraged loans, senior floating-rate debt issued to high-yield borrowers, was occasionally intense as investors sought protection from rising rates. The desire for duration protection has faded as rates have plunged to new lows, but ETFs and CLOs were eager buyers at points during the last expansion. In a Special Report published last summer, our US Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services concluded that the ownership of leveraged loans is diffuse enough that credit strains are unlikely to pose a systemic threat. They were also encouraged that leveraged loans and high yield corporate bonds act as substitutes, keeping one another in check as investor preferences for fixed and floating instruments wax and wane. They also noted that leveraged loan lending standards had tightened last year, with a reduced share of covenant-lite loans being issued, though standards have eased again since they published their report (Chart 7). Chart 7Covenant Protections Have Eroded Chart 8Diverse Corporate Bond Ownership Will Help Mitigate The Effect Of Defaults There is no way around the fact that high yield corporate bondholders (Chart 8), owners of CLO tranches rated below AAA and leveraged loan holders face elevated credit losses as the broad economic shutdown provokes a wave of defaults in instruments without Fed support. We expect that the default losses will be spread out across enough constituents that they will not become worryingly concentrated, but they may contribute to a further erosion of risk appetites.       Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the April 23, 2020 Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Could The Pandemic Actually Raise Stock Prices?" available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Paumgarten, Nick. "The Price of a Pandemic." The New Yorker, April 20, 2020, pp. 20-24. The article, relaying traders’ conversations, contains some profanity. 3 Galchen, Rivka. "The Longest Shift." The New Yorker, April 27, 2020, pp. 20-26. The article, relaying ER conversations, contains some profanity.

Highlights Yesterday we published a Special Report titled EM: Foreign Currency Debt Strains. We are upgrading our stance on EM local currency bonds from negative to neutral. Before upgrading to a bullish stance, we would first need to upgrade our stance on EM currencies. We recommend receiving long-term swap rates in Russia, Mexico, Colombia, China and India. EM central banks’ swap lines with the Fed could be used to fend off short-term speculative attacks on EM currencies. Nevertheless, they cannot prevent EM exchange rates from depreciation when fundamental pressures warrant weaker EM currencies. For the rampant expansion of US money supply to produce a lasting greenback depreciation, US dollars should be recycled abroad. This is not yet occurring. Domestic Bonds: A New Normal Chart I-1Performance Of EM Domestic Bonds In The Last Decade In recent years, our strategy has favored the US dollar and, by extension, US Treasurys over EM domestic bonds. Chart I-1 demonstrates that the EM GBI local currency bond total return index in US dollar terms is at the same level as it was in 2011, and has massively underperformed 5-year US Treasurys. We are now upgrading our stance on EM local currency bonds from negative to neutral. Consistently, we recommend investors seek longer duration in EM domestic bonds while remaining cautious on the majority of EM currencies. Before upgrading to a bullish stance on EM local bonds, we would first need to upgrade our stance on EM currencies. Still, long-term investors who can tolerate volatility should begin accumulating EM local bonds on any further currency weakness. Our upgrade is based on the following reasons: First, there has been a fundamental shift in EM central banks’ policies. In past global downturns, many EM central banks hiked interest rates to defend their currencies. Presently, they are cutting rates aggressively despite large currency depreciation. This is the right policy action to fight the epic deflationary shock that EM economies are presently facing. There has been a fundamental shift in EM central banks’ policies. They are cutting rates aggressively despite large currency depreciation. Historically, EM local bond yields were often negatively correlated with exchange rates (Chart I-2, top panel). Similarly, when EM currencies began plunging two months ago, EM local bond yields initially spiked. However, following the brief spike, bond yields have begun dropping, even though EM currencies have not rallied (Chart I-2, bottom panel). This represents a new normal, which we discussed in detail in our October 24 report. Overall, even if EM currencies continue to depreciate, EM domestic bond yields will drop as they price in lower EM policy rates. Second, the monetary policy transmission mechanism in many EMs was broken before the COVID-19 outbreak. Even though central banks in many developing countries were reducing their policy rates before the pandemic, commercial banks’ corresponding lending rates were not dropping much (Chart I-3, top panel). Chart II-2EM Local Bond Yields And EM Currencies Chart I-3EM ex-China: Monetary Transmission Has Been Impaired   Further, core inflation rates were at all time lows and prime lending rates in real terms were extremely high (Chart I-3, middle panels). Consequently, bank loan growth was slowing preceding the pandemic (Chart I-3, bottom panel). The reason was banks’ poor financial health. Saddled with a lot of NPLs, banks had been seeking wide interest rate margins to generate profit and recapitalize themselves. With the outburst of the pandemic and the sudden stop in domestic and global economic activity, EM banks’ willingness to lend has all but evaporated. Chart I-4 reveals EM ex-China bank stocks have plunged, despite considerable monetary policy easing in EM, which historically was bullish for bank share prices. This upholds the fact that the monetary policy transmission mechanism in EM is broken. Mounting bad loans due to the pandemic will only reinforce these dynamics. Swap lines with the Fed cannot prevent EM exchange rates from depreciation when fundamental pressures – global and domestic recessions – warrant weaker EM currencies. In brief, EM lower policy rates will not be transmitted to lower borrowing costs for companies and households anytime soon. Loan growth and domestic demand will remain in an air pocket for some time.    Consequently, EM policy rates will have to drop much lower to have a meaningful impact on growth. Third, there is value in EM local yields. The yield differential between EM GBI local currency bonds and 5-year US Treasurys shot up back to 500 basis points, the upper end of its historical range (Chart I-5). Chart I-4EM ex-China: Bank Stocks Plunged Despite Rate Cuts Chart I-5The EM Vs. US Yield Differential Is Attractive   Bottom Line: Odds favor further declines in EM local currency bond yields. Fixed-income investors should augment their duration exposure. We express this view by recommending receiving swap rates in the following markets: Russia, Mexico, Colombia, India and China. This is in addition to our existing receiver positions in Korean and Malaysian swap rates. For more detail, please refer to the Investment Recommendations section on page 8. Nevertheless, absolute-return investors should be cognizant of further EM currency depreciation. EM Currencies: At Mercy Of Global Growth Chart I-6EM Currencies Correlate With Commodities Prices The key driver of EM currencies has been and remains global growth. The latter will remain very depressed for some time, warranting patience before turning bullish on EM exchange rates. We have long argued that EM exchange rates are driven not by US interest rates but by global growth. Industrial metals prices offer a reasonable pulse on global growth. Chart I-6 illustrates their tight correlation with EM currencies. Even though the S&P 500 has rebounded sharply in recent weeks, there are no signs of a meaningful improvement in industrial metals prices. Various raw materials prices in China are also sliding (Chart I-7). In a separate section below we lay out the case as to why there is more downside in iron ore and steel as well as coal prices in China. Finally, the ADXY – the emerging Asia currency index against the US dollar – has broken down below its 2008, 2016 and 2018-19 lows (Chart I-8). This is a very bearish technical profile, suggesting more downside ahead. This fits with our fundamental assessment that a recovery in global economic activity is not yet imminent. Chart I-7China: Commodities Prices Are Sliding Chart I-8A Breakdown In Emerging Asian Currencies   What About The Fed’s Swap Lines? A pertinent question is whether EM central banks’ foreign currency reserves and the Federal Reserve’s swap lines with several of its EM counterparts are sufficient to prop up EM currencies prior to a pickup in global growth. The short answer is as follows: These swap lines will likely limit the downside but cannot preclude further depreciation. With the exception of Turkey and South Africa, virtually all mainstream EM banks have large foreign currency reserves. On top of this, several of them – Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore– have recently obtained access to Fed swap lines. Their own foreign exchange reserves and the swap lines with the Fed give them an option to defend their currencies from depreciation if they choose to do so. However, selling US dollars by EM central banks is not without cost. When central banks sell their FX reserves or dollars obtained from the Fed via swap lines, they withdraw local currency liquidity from the system. As a result, banking system liquidity shrinks, pushing up interbank rates. This is equivalent to hiking interest rates. The Fed’s outright money printing is the sole reason to buy EM risk assets and currencies at the moment. Yet, EM fundamentals – namely, its growth outlook – remain downbeat. Hence, the cost of defending the exchange rate by using FX reserves is both liquidity and credit tightening. In such a case, the currency could stabilize but the economy will take a beating. Since the currency depreciation was itself due to economic weakness, such a policy will in and of itself be self-defeating. The basis is that escalating domestic economic weakness will re-assert its dampening effect on the currency. Of course, EM central banks can offset such tightening by injecting new liquidity. However, this could also backfire and lead to renewed currency depreciation. Bottom Line: EM central banks’ swap lines with the Fed are primarily intended to instill confidence among investors in financial markets. They could be used to fend off short-term speculative attacks on EM currencies. Nevertheless, they cannot prevent EM exchange rates from depreciation when fundamental pressures – global and domestic recessions – warrant weaker EM currencies. What About The Fed’s Money Printing? Chart I-9The Fed Is Aggressively Printing Money The Fed is printing money and monetising not only public debt but also substantial amounts of private debt. This will ultimately be very bearish for the US dollar. Chart I-9 illustrates that the Fed is printing money much more aggressively than during its quantitative easing (QE) policies post 2008. The key difference between the Fed’s liquidity provisions now and during its previous QEs is as follows: When the Fed purchases securities from or lends to commercial banks, it creates new reserves (banking system liquidity) but it does not create money supply. Banks’ reserves at the Fed are not a part of broad money supply. This was generally the case during previous QEs when the Fed was buying bonds mostly – but not exclusively – from banks, therefore increasing reserves without raising money supply by much. When the Fed lends to or purchases securities from non-banks, it creates both excess reserves for the banking system and money supply (deposits at banks) out of thin air. The fact that US money supply (M2) growth is now much stronger than during the 2010s QEs suggests the recent surge in US money supply is due to the Fed’s asset purchases from and lending to non-banks, which creates money/deposits outright.  The rampant expansion of US money supply will eventually lead to the greenback’s depreciation. However, for the US dollar to depreciate against EM currencies, the following two conditions should be satisfied: 1. US imports should expand, reviving global growth, i.e., the US should send dollars to the rest of the world by buying goods and services. This is not yet happening as domestic demand in America has plunged and any demand recovery in the next three to six months will be tame and muted. 2. US investors should channel US dollars to EM to purchase EM financial assets. In recent weeks, foreign flows have been returning to EM due to the considerable improvement in EM asset valuations. However, the sustainability of these capital flows into EM remains questionable. The main reasons are two-fold: (A) there is huge uncertainty on how efficiently EM countries will be able handle the economic and health repercussions of the pandemic; and (B) global growth remains weak and, as we discussed above, it has historically been the main driver of EM risk assets and currencies.  Bottom Line: The Fed’s outright money printing is the sole reason to buy EM risk assets and currencies at the moment. Yet, EM fundamentals – namely, its growth outlook – remain downbeat. Overall, we recommend investors to stay put on EM risk assets and currencies in the near-term. Investment Recommendations Chart I-10China: Bet On Lower Long-Term Yields We have been recommending receiving rates in a few markets such as Korea and Malaysia. Now, we are widening this universe to include Russia, Mexico, Colombia, China, and India. In China, the long end of the yield curve offers value (Chart I-10, top panel). The People’s Bank of China has brought down short rates dramatically but the long end has so far lagged (Chart I-10, bottom panel). We recommend investors receive 10-year swap rates. Fixed-income investors could also bet on yield curve flattening. The recovery in China will be tame and the PBoC will keep interest rates lower for longer. Consequently, long-dated swap rates will gravitate toward short rates.  We are closing three fixed-income trades: In Mexico, we are booking profits on our trade of receiving 2-year / paying 10-year swap rates – a bet on a steeper yield curve. This position has generated a 152 basis-point gain since its initiation on April 12, 2018. In Colombia, our bet on yield curve flattening has produced a loss of 28 basis points since January 17, 2019. We are closing it. In Chile, we are closing our long 3-year bonds / short 3-year inflation-linked bonds position. This trade has returned 2.0% since we recommended it on October 3, 2019. For dedicated EM domestic bond portfolios, our overweights are Russia, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, India, China, Pakistan and Ukraine. Our underweights are South Africa, Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia and the Philippines. The remaining markets warrant a neutral allocation. Regarding EM currencies, we continue to recommend shorting a basket of the following currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Chinese Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Markets: Heading South Chart II-1Steel, Iron Ore And Coal Prices: More Downside Ahead? Odds are that iron ore, steel and coal prices will all continue heading south (Chart II-1). Lower prices will harm both Chinese and global producers of these commodities. Steel And Iron Ore The oversupplied conditions in the Chinese steel market will become even more aggravated over the next three to six months. First, Chinese output of steel products has not contracted even though demand plunged in the first three months of the year, creating oversupply. Despite falling steel prices and the demand breakdown resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, Chinese crude steel output still grew at 1.5% and its steel products output only declined 0.6% between January and March from a year ago (Chart II-2). Chart II-2Steel Products Output In China: Still No Contraction The profit margin of Chinese steel producers has compressed but not enough to herald a sizable cut in mainland steel production. Despite oversupply, Chinese steel producers are reluctant to curtail output to prevent layoffs. This year, there will be 62 million tons of new steel production capacity while 82 million tons of obsolete capacity will be shut down. As the capacity-utilization rate (CUR) of the new advanced production capacity will be much higher than the CUR on those soon-to-be-removed capacities in previous years, this will help lift steel output.   Second, Chinese steel demand has plummeted, and any revival will be mild and gradual over the next three to six months. Construction accounts for about 55% of Chinese steel demand, with about 35% coming from the property market and 20% from infrastructure. Additionally, the automobile industry contributes about 10% of demand. All three sectors are currently in deep contraction (Chart II-3). Looking ahead, we expect that the demand for steel from property construction and automobile production will revive only gradually. Overall, it will continue contracting on a year-on-year basis, albeit at a diminishing rate than now. While we projected a 6-8% rise in Chinese infrastructure investment for this year, most of that will be back-loaded to the second half of the year. In addition, modest and gradual steel demand increases from this source will not be able to offset the loss of demand from the property and automobile sectors. The oversupplied conditions in the Chinese steel market will become even more aggravated over the next three to six months. Reflecting the disparity between weak demand and resilient supply, steel inventories in the hands of producers and traders are surging, which also warrants much lower prices (Chart II-4).   Chart II-3Deep Contraction In Steel Demand From Major Users Chart II-4Significant Build-Up In Steel Inventories   Chart II-5Chinese Iron Ore Imports Will Likely Decline In 2020 Regarding iron ore, mushrooming steel inventories in China and lower steel prices will eventually lead to steel output cutbacks in the country. This will be compounded by shrinking steel production outside of China, dampening global demand for iron ore. Besides, in China, scrap steel prices have fallen more sharply than iron ore prices have. This makes the use of scrap steel more appealing than iron ore in steel production. Chinese iron ore imports will likely drop this year (Chart II-5). Finally, the global output of iron ore is likely to increase in 2020. The top three producers (Vale, Rio Tinto and BHP) have all set their 2020 guidelines above their 2019 production levels. This will further weigh on iron ore prices. Coal Although Chinese coal prices will also face downward pressure, we believe that the downside will be much less than that for steel and iron ore prices. Coal prices have already declined nearly 27% from their 2019 peak. They recently declined below 500 RMB per ton – the lower end of a range that the government generally tries to maintain. Prices had not dropped below this level since September 2016. In the near term, prices could go down by another 5-10%, given that record-high domestic coal production and imports have overwhelmed the market (Chart II-6). Coal prices have already declined nearly 27% from their 2019 peak. They recently declined below 500 RMB per ton – the lower end of a range that the government generally tries to maintain. However, there are emerging supportive forces. China Coal Transport & Distribution Association (CCTD), the nation’s leading industry group, on April 18, called on the industry to slash production (of both thermal and coking coal) in May by 10%. It also proposed that the government should restrict imports. The CCTD stated that about 42% of the producers are losing money at current coal prices. The government had demanded producers make similar cuts for a much longer time duration in 2016, which pushed coal to sky-high prices.  The outlook for a revival in the consumption of electricity and, thereby, in the demand for coal is more certain than it is for steel and iron ore. About 60% of Chinese coal is used to generate thermal power. Finally, odds are rising that the government will temporarily impose restrictions on coal imports as it did last December – when coal imports to China fell by 70% as a result. Investment Implications Companies and countries producing these commodities will be hurt by the reduction of Chinese purchases. These include, but are not limited to, producers in Indonesia, Australia, Brazil and South Africa. Iron ore and coal make up 10% of total exports in Brazil, 6% in South Africa, 18% in Indonesia and 32% in Australia. Investors should avoid global steel and mining stocks (Chart II-7). Chart II-6Chinese Coal Output And Imports Are At Record Highs Chart II-7Avoid Global Steel And Mining Stocks For Now   We continue to recommend shorting BRL, ZAR and IDR versus the US dollar. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights The Chinese economy is recovering at a slower rate than the equity market has priced in. There is a high likelihood of negative revisions to Q2 EPS estimates and an elevated risk of a near-term price correction in Chinese stocks.  We expect a meaningful pickup in credit growth in H1 to improve domestic demand gain tractions in H2. This supports our overweight stance on Chinese stocks in the next 6-12 months, in both absolute and relative terms. There is still a strong probability that the yield curve will flatten, and the 10-year government bond yield may even dip below 2% in the wake of disappointing economic data in Q2. But our baseline scenario suggests the 10-year government bond yield should bottom no later than Q3 of this year. Feature This week’s report addresses pressing concerns from clients in China’s post-Covid-19 environment. China’s economy contracted by 6.8% in Q1, the largest GDP growth slump since 1976. Furthermore, the IMF’s baseline scenario projects a 3% contraction in global economic growth in 2020, with the Chinese economy growing at a mere 1.2%.1 This dim annual growth outlook means that the contraction in China’s economy will likely extend to Q2, dragging down corporate profit growth. In our April 1st report2 we recommended that investors maintain a neutral stance on Chinese stocks in the next three months due to uncertainties surrounding the pandemic, the oversized passive outperformance in Chinese stocks, and heightened risks for further risk-asset selloffs. On a 6- to 12-month horizon, however, we have a higher conviction that Chinese stocks will outperform global benchmarks. Our view is based on a decisive shift by policymakers to a “whatever it takes” approach to boost the economy. We believe that the speed of China’s economic recovery in the second half of 2020 will outpace other major economies.  Q: China’s economy is recovering ahead of other major economies. Why did you recently downgrade your tactical call on Chinese equities from overweight to neutral relative to global stocks? A: China’s economy is recovering, but it is recovering at a slower rate than the equity market has fully priced in (Chart 1A and 1B). We believe the likelihood of negative revisions to Q2 EPS estimates is high, and the risk of a near-term price correction in Chinese stocks remains elevated.  Chart 1AElevated Chinese Equity Outperformance Relative To Global Stocks Chart 1BChinese Stocks Largely Ignored Weakness In Domestic Economy The lackluster March data suggests that the pace of China’s economic recovery in April and even May will likely disappoint, weighing on the growth prospects for Q2’s corporate earnings (Chart 2). Chart 2EPS Growth Estimates Likely To Capitulate In Q2 The work resumption rate in China’s 36 provinces jumped sharply between mid-February and mid-March. However, since that time, the resumption rate among large enterprises has hovered around 80% of normal capacity (Chart 3). Chart 3Work Resumption Hardly Improved Since Mid-March The flattening of the work resumption rate curve is due to a lack of strong recovery in demand. Chart 4So Far No Strong Recovery In Domestic Demand The flattening of the resumption rate curve is due to a lack of strong recovery in demand. Although there was a surge in Chinese imports in crude oil and raw materials, the increase was the result of China taking advantage of low commodity prices. This surge cannot be sustained without a pickup in domestic demand. The March bounce back in domestic demand from the manufacturing, construction, and household sectors has all been lackluster (Chart 4). External demand, which growth remained in contraction through March, will likely worsen in Q2 (Chart 5). Exports shrunk by 6.6% in March, up from a deep contraction of 17.2% in January-February. Export orders can take more than a month to be processed, therefore, March’s data reflects pent-up orders from the first two months of the year. The US and European economies started their lockdowns in March, so Chinese exports will only feel the full impact of the collapse in demand from its trading partners in April and May. The work resumption rate will advance only if the momentum in domestic demand recovery increases to fully offset the collapse in external demand. The current 83% rate of work resumption implies that industrial output growth in April will remain in contraction on a year-over-year basis (Chart 6). Chart 5External Demand Will Worsen In Q2 Chart 6Will Q2 Industrial Output Growth Remain In Contraction? Although we maintain a constructive outlook on Chinese risk assets in the next 6 to 12 months, the short-term picture remains volatile in view of the emerging economic data. As such, we recommend investors to maintain short-term hedges for risk asset positions. Q: China’s policy response to mitigate the economic blow from COVID-19 has been noticeably smaller than programs rolled out in key developed economies, especially the US. Why do you think such measured stimulus from China warrants an overweight stance on Chinese stocks in the next 6-12 months relative to global benchmarks? A: It is true that the size of existing Chinese stimulus, as a percentage of the Chinese economy, is smaller than that has been announced in the US. But this is due to a different approach China is taking in stimulating its economy. In addition, both the recent policy rhetoric and PBoC actions suggest a large credit expansion is in the works. This will likely overcompensate the damage on China’s aggregate economy, and generate an outperformance in both Chinese economic growth and returns on Chinese risk assets in the next 6 to 12 months. China’s policy responses have an overarching focus on stimulating new demand and investment, which is a different approach from the programs offered by its Western counterparts. In the US, the combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus amounts to 11% of GDP as of April 16, with almost all policy support targeted at keeping companies and individuals afloat. In comparison, China’s policy response accounts for a mere 1.2% of its GDP.3  However, this direct comparison understates the enormous firepower in the Chinese stimulus toolkit, specifically a credit boom. As noted in our February 26 report,4 China has largely resorted to its “old economic playbook” by generating a huge credit wave to ride out the economic turmoil. Our prediction of the policy shift towards a significant escalation in stimulus was confirmed at the March 27 Politburo meeting. Moreover, the April 17 Politburo meeting reinforced a “whatever it takes” policy shift with direct calls on more forceful central bank policy actions, a first since the global financial crisis in 2008.5 Since 2008, the overnight repo rate’s breaking into the IORR-IOER corridor has been a reliable indicator leading to impressive credit upcycles. The PBoC’s recent aggressive easing measures have pushed down the interbank repo rate below the central bank’s interest rate on required reserves (IORR). The price for interbank borrowing is now near the lower range of the rate corridor, between the IORR and the interest rate on excess reserves (IOER).  Since 2008, the overnight repo rate’s breaking into the IORR-IOER corridor has been a reliable indicator leading to impressive credit upcycles (Chart 7).  Such credit super cycles, in turn, have led to both economic booms and an outperformance in Chinese stocks. Chart 7Another Credit Super Cycle Is In The Works Chart 8Financial Conditions Were Extremely Tight In 2011-2014 The 2012-2015 cycle was an exception to the relationship between the overnight interbank repo rate, credit growth and Chinese stock performance. A steep pickup in credit growth in 2012 coincided with a leap in the overnight interbank repo rate, and the credit boom did not help boost demand in the real economy or improve Chinese stock performance. This is because corporate borrowing was severely curtailed by high lending rates during a four-year monetary tightening cycle from 2011 to 2014 (Chart 8). The credit boom during that cycle was largely driven by explosive growth in short-term shadow-bank lending and wealth management products (WMP), and did not channel into the real economy.6 We do not think such an extreme phenomena will replay under the current circumstances. Monetary stance will likely remain tremendously accommodative through the end of the year to facilitate a continuous rollout of medium- to long-term bank loans and local government bonds. Chinese financial institutions’ “animal spirits” may have been unleashed. But under the scrutiny of the Macro-Prudential Assessment Framework and the New Asset Management Rules,7 the "animal spirits" are unlikely to run up enough risks to prompt the PBoC to prematurely tighten liquidity conditions in the interbank market. Marginal propensity in China is pro-cyclical, which tends to lag credit cycles by 6 months. Chart 9Marginal Propensity In China Is Pro-Cyclical Both corporate and household marginal propensity, a measure of the willingness to spend, will pick up as well. Marginal propensity is pro-cyclical, which tends to lag credit cycles by 6 months (Chart 9). In other words, when interest rates are low and credit growth improves, corporates and households tend to spend more.  The meaningful expansion in credit growth, which started in Q1 and will sustain in the coming two to three quarters, will help corporate and household spending gain tractions in H2. This constructive view on Chinese stimulus and economic recovery supports our overweight stance on Chinese stocks in the next 6-12 months, in both absolute and relative terms.  Q: The yield curve in Chinese government bonds has steepened following PBoC’s aggressive monetary easing announcements. Has the Chinese 10-year bond yield bottomed?   A: No, we do not think the 10-year bond yield has bottomed. There is probability the 10-year government bond yield may briefly dip below 2% in Q2. However, barring a multi-year global economic recession, we think the 10-year government bond yield will bottom no later than Q3 this year. Chart 10A Wide Gap Between The Long and Short The short end of the yield curve dropped disproportionally compared with the long end, following the PBoC’s announcement to place its first IOER cut since 2008 (Chart 10). This led to a rapid steepening in the yield curve. While our view supports a flattening of the yield curve in Q2 and even a 50bps drop in the 10-year government bond yield, we think that the capitulation will be brief. In order for the 10-year government bond yield to remain below 2% for an extended period of time, the market needs to believe one or more of the following will happen: The pandemic will cause a multi-year global economic recession, preventing the PBoC from normalizing its policy stance in the foreseeable future. The duration and depth of the economic impact from the pandemic are still moving targets. Our baseline scenario suggests that the Chinese economic recovery will pick up momentum in H2 this year. The PBoC will not normalize its policy stance even when the economy has stabilized. The PBoC has a track record as a reactive central bank rather than a proactive one. Still, during each of the past three economic and credit cycles, the PBoC has started to normalize its interest rate on average nine months following a bottom in the business cycle (Chart 11). The tightening of interest rate even applied to the prolonged economic downturn and deep deflationary cycle in 2015/16 (Chart 12).    Chart 11The 'Old Faithful' PBoC Policy Normalization Pattern Chart 12Policy Normalized Even After A Long Economic Downturn Chart 132008 Or 2015? How the yield curve has historically behaved also depended on the market’s expectations on the speed of the economic recovery, and the timing of the subsequent monetary policy normalization. The yield curved spiked in the wake of substantial monetary easing and pickup in credit growth, in both 2008 and 2015 (Chart 13). While in 2008 the yield curve moved in lockstep with the 3-month SHIBOR with a perfect reverse correlation, in the 2015/16 cycle the yield curve spiked initially but quickly flattened. The long end of the yield curve capitulated as soon as the market realized the economic slowdown was a prolonged one. The 10-year government bond yield, after trending sideways in early 2016, only truly bottomed after the nominal output growth troughed in Q1 2016 (Chart 13, bottom panel). Will the yield curve behave like in 2008, or more like in 2015 in this cycle? We think it will be somewhere in between. The current economic cycle bottomed in Q1, but the economy is only recovering slowly and we expect a U-shaped economic recovery rather than a 2008-style V-shaped one.  At the same time, our baseline scenario does not suggest the current environment will evolve into a 4-year deflationary cycle as in the 2012-2016 period. Therefore, we expect the low interest rate environment to endure for another two to three quarters before the PBoC starts to reverse its policy stance back to the pre-COVID-19 range. As such, the yield on 10-year government bonds will fall, possibly by as much as 50bps, when the economic data disappoint in Q2 and more rate cuts are forthcoming.  But it will bottom when the economic recovery starts to gain traction in H22020 and the market starts to price in a subsequent monetary policy normalization.  When growth slows and debt rises sharply, the PBoC will need to join its western counterparts to permanently maintain an ultra-low interest rate policy to accommodate its high debt level. We acknowledge the fact that China’s potential output growth is trending down (Chart 14).  But it has been trending downwards since 2011. A structurally slowing rate of economic growth has not prevented the PBoC from cyclically raising its policy rate. Hence, unless we see evidence that the pandemic is meaningfully lowering China’s potential growth on par with growth rates in the DMs, our baseline scenario does not support a structural ultra-low interest rate environment in China. China’s debt-to-GDP ratio will most likely rise substantially this year, given that the credit impulse will gain momentum and GDP will grow very modestly. However, this rapid rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio will most likely not be sustained beyond this year. Even if we assume that credit impulse will account for 40% of GDP in 2020 (the same magnitude as in 2008/09), a sharp reversal in the output gap in 2021, as predicted by IMF,8 will flatten the debt-to-GDP ratio curve (Chart 15).  Moreover, following every credit super cycle in the past, Chinese authorities have put a brake on the debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart 14China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... Chart 15...But Has Not Stopped PBoC From Flattening The Debt Curve   All in all, while we see a high possibility for the 10-year government bond yield to fall in Q2, the decline will be limited in terms of duration. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1IMF World Economic Outlook, April 2020 2Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing During A Global Pandemic," dated April 1, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3IMF, Policy Responses To COVID-19 https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19#U 4Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook?" dated February 26, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5“Stable monetary policy must become more flexible” and “use RRR reductions, lower interest rates, re-lending and other measures to preserve adequate liquidity and guide the loan prime rate downwards.” Statements from Xi Jinping, April 17, 2020 Politburo Meeting. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2020-04/17/content_5503621.htm  6 Bankers’ acceptances - short-term debt instruments guaranteed by commercial banks - swelled by 887% between end-2008 and 2012. The outstanding amount of WMPs jumped from 1.7 trillion RMB in 2009 to more than 9 trillion RMB by H12013. In contrast, the amount of RMB-denominated bank loans increased by only 67% during the same period. 7The Macro-Prudential Assessment Framework and the New Asset Management Rules were implemented in 2016 and 2018, respectively. They are designed to create additional restrictions to curb shadow-bank lending and broaden the PBoC’s oversight on banks’ WMP holdings. 8The April IMF World Economic Outlook predicts a 1.2% Chinese GDP growth in 2020 and a 9.2% GDP growth in 2021. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights In mainstream EM, foreign currency debt restructuring is more likely to occur among corporates than governments. Thus, dedicated EM credit investors should overweight mainstream EM sovereign credit and underweight EM corporate debt. Urgency among EM companies and banks to hedge their large foreign currency liabilities will continue exerting downward pressure on EM exchange rates. Ongoing currency depreciation and the lack of buyers of last resort for EM credit underpin the following strategy: short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long US investment-grade corporate credit. Feature Scope And Focus Of Analysis This report re-visits the issue of EM foreign currency debt, assessing EM debt vulnerability. This report focuses on mainstream EM (countries included in Table 1), excluding Gulf countries and frontier markets. Frontier markets like Argentina, Ecuador, Egypt, Ukraine, Lebanon and sub-Saharan African countries occupy somewhat idiosyncratic positions and are therefore not part of this report. Gulf countries on the other hand, are extremely leveraged to oil prices and, unlike mainstream EMs they have currency pegs warranting a separate analysis.1 Chart 1Favor EM Sovereign Against EM Corporate Credit Among mainstream EM countries, public debt restructuring is not imminent and in the majority of cases is unlikely. However, there is a growing risk of foreign currency debt restructuring among EM companies and banks. Hence, we make a new investment recommendation: overweight mainstream EM sovereign credit / underweight EM corporate debt (Chart 1). We also reiterate the short EM sovereign and corporate credit / long US investment-grade corporate credit strategy. In this report, foreign currency debt is defined as the sum of foreign debt securities (i.e., foreign currency bonds) and foreign currency loans. In short, foreign currency debt measures foreign currency borrowing of companies, banks and governments. These statistics do not include foreign holdings of local currency bonds and equities or any other local currency liability of residents to foreigners. Overall, the level of foreign currency debt is pertinent in assessing EM debt vulnerability originating from exchange rate depreciation. Table 12 offers comprehensive foreign currency debt statistics for each individual country and EM as a whole. It details foreign currency debt by type of borrower - the government, corporates and banks – and also reveals the breakdown between foreign debt securities and foreign currency loans for each segment. Table 1EM FX Debt: Who Owes How Much Chart 2EM FX Debt Has Doubled Since 2008 The foreign currency debt of Chinese companies and banks is quite substantial relative to other EM countries. Hence, including China in the EM aggregates would materially affect these EM aggregates. We thus focus our analysis on EM ex-China and present China’s numbers separately. Since early 2009, EM ex-China aggregate foreign currency debt has doubled to about $3 trillion (Chart 2). Furthermore, this $3 trillion EM ex-China foreign currency debt is split as follows in terms of borrower type: non-financial corporates ($1.25 billion), banks ($846 billion) and governments ($878 billion). Government Foreign Currency Debt Among mainstream EM countries, foreign currency government debt is not vulnerable to restructuring or default. The reason is that the foreign currency debt burden of governments is low, having declined dramatically in the last decade. Table 2 illustrates that the share of local currency government debt is by far greater than the foreign currency debt in each EM country. Table 2EM Public Debt: Local Currency Exceeds FX Debt In the past 10 years, EM governments have deliberately replaced their foreign currency debt with local currency debt. Search for yield by international fixed-income investors has facilitated this debt swap: enormous foreign demand for EM domestic bonds has allowed EM governments to issue a considerable amount of local currency bonds. Chart 3EM Foreign Exchange Reserves Are Large In addition, mainstream EM countries, with exception of Turkey and South Africa, hold large foreign currency reserves (Chart 3). Lately, several mainstream EM countries have gained a new defense tool from the Federal Reserves – US dollar swap lines. EM central banks’ swap lines with the Fed are primarily intended to instill confidence among investors in financial markets. They could be used to fend off short-term speculative attacks on EM currencies. Nevertheless, they cannot alleviate insolvency problems. We will elaborate more about these swap lines with the Fed in another report this week. As to local currency public debt, the odds of debt restructuring are also low. First, the majority of EM countries have low aggregate public debt burdens as a share of the GDP (Table 2). Second, the majority of these nations have flexible currency regimes. This means that their central banks control the printing press. In the worst-case scenario - when investors become reluctant to own EM local currency government bonds, EM central banks can buy those bonds in both the secondary or primary markets if needed. In short, EM central banks can resort to a form of quantitative easing, i.e., purchasing local currency government bonds that would amount to public debt monetization. The wild card in this case will be the exchange rate – the currencies could depreciate substantially amid public debt monetization by central banks. Given that government liabilities in foreign currencies have declined substantially, exchange rate depreciation will not be a constraint for policymakers’ ability to monetize local currency debt. Remarkably, in the past two months amid the global indiscriminate selloff, central banks in several EM countries have begun purchasing government bonds or have stated that they will do so if required. This has created a precedent that will be used in future. One country that has large local currency government debt is Brazil. We have previously argued that Brazil requires robust nominal GDP growth to climb out of a public debt trap. With the COVID-19 crisis, the outbreak for its public debt has worsened considerably. Without the central bank monetizing public debt, it will be difficult for Brazil to escape rising government debt strains and, ultimately, local currency debt restructuring. In short, the cost of avoiding local currency public debt restructuring in Brazil could be large currency depreciation. Bottom Line: In mainstream EM, neither foreign currency nor local currency government debt face an imminent risk of restructuring. Public debt restructuring and defaults are occurring in Argentina and among frontier markets like Ecuador, Lebanon and a few sub-Saharan nations that are beyond the scope of this report. If local currency government bond markets become anxious about public debt sustainability, EM central banks could purchase government paper. If done on large scale, this will cause further currency depreciation. Corporate Foreign Currency Debt From a macro perspective, there are presently some pre-conditions that herald rising odds of foreign currency debt restructuring among EM corporates and banks: (1) rapid and massive foreign currency debt built up in the past 10-15 years; (2) substantial plunge in corporate revenues; and (3) massive currency depreciation. Taken together, these create fertile ground for debt restructuring by some corporate debtors. Foreign currency debt of companies and banks in mainstream EM ex-China countries has swelled in the past 10 years reaching $2.1. Bonds account for about $1.4 trillion while foreign currency loans account for the remaining $0.7 trillion. The global recession brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic is producing a collapse in EM companies’ local currency revenues and exports. Notably, EM ex-China exports were contracting even before the COVID-19 outbreak and they are currently crashing (Chart 4). Chart 4EM Exports & Corporate Credit Spreads Chart 5Commodities Prices And Currencies Drive EM Credit Spreads The top panel of Chart 5 illustrates EM corporate credit spreads (inverted) correlate with commodities prices. Hence, plunging commodities prices entail growing foreign currency debt stress for EM companies and banks. Finally, EM ex-China currencies have depreciated substantially making foreign currency debt more expensive to service (Chart 5, bottom panel). Please refer to Box 1 attesting that for EM debtors with US dollar liabilities, EM exchange rate depreciation is worse than that of higher US bond yields.     Box 1 What Is More Imperative For EM FX Debt: Exchange Rates Or Interest Rates? EM debtors with dollar debt are much more vulnerable to an appreciating dollar than rising US interest rates. Table 3 illustrates this point using the following hypothetical simulation: We consider a conjectural Brazilian debtor with $1,000 in debt with five years remaining to maturity, and a starting point exchange rate of 4 BRL per USD. In our example, a 5% depreciation in local currency against the dollar boosts the overall debt burden by 200 BRL (please refer to row 2 of Table 3). This does not include the rise in local currency costs of interest payments. It reflects only the increased burden of principal. Table 3A Hypothetical Simulation: FX Debt Burden Is More Sensitive To Exchange Rate Than Borrowing Costs An equivalent rise in debt servicing costs in local currency will require a 100-basis-point increase in US dollar borrowing costs. In brief, US dollar rates should rise by 100 basis points for interest payments to increase by BRL 200 over a five-year period, the time remaining to maturity. This simulation reveals that a 5% dollar appreciation versus local currency is as painful as a 100 basis points rise in US dollar rates and is more burdensome if the cost of coupon payments is accounted for. Provided there are higher odds of 5% currency depreciation in many EMs than a 100-basis-point rise in US dollar borrowing costs, we infer that EM FX debtors’ creditworthiness is more sensitive to exchange rates than to US Treasury yields. As the bottom panel of Chart 5 above clearly demonstrates, EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads correlate strongly with EM exchange rates. Consequently, the trend in EM exchange rates versus the US dollar is much more important for EM credit spreads than fluctuations in US bond yields. As to the currency composition of EM FX debt, about 82% of EM external debt is in US-dollar terms. Bottom Line: So long as EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM FX debt stress will mount, and EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads will widen. This will occur irrespective of whether US Treasury yields rise or drop.   If the bear market in commodities persists and/or EM currencies depreciate further – which is our baseline scenario, defaults on and restructuring of foreign currency debt among EM companies and banks are probable. One avenue to avoid corporate defaults is for the government to guarantee or assume the banks’ and companies’ foreign currency liabilities. It is probable because many of these borrowers are large entities with close links to their governments. However, governments will step in only after a debtor is on the brink default and its credit spreads are very wide. Briefly put, investors should be careful not to bet too early on government backstops of EM corporates’ and banks’ foreign currency debt. Identifying which corporate issuers could default or restructure debt involves bottom-up analysis that is beyond the scope of the macro research that BCA specializes in. An important question is what portion of corporate foreign currency liabilities have these debtors already hedged? Unfortunately, there are no macro data to answer this question either. Judging by the magnitude and speed of EM currency depreciation we have seen in the past two months, odds are that they have already partially hedged their exchange rate risk. Yet, given the sheer size of foreign currency liabilities, it is hard to imagine that corporates and banks have hedged all of them. Below we analyze each countries’ ability to service its foreign currency debt from a macro perspective. Vulnerability Assessment From a macro standpoint, foreign debt servicing vulnerability can be measured by foreign debt obligations (FDOs) and foreign funding requirements (FFRs). Chart 6EM FDOs And FFRs (Annualized) FDOs are the sum of debt expiring in the next 12 months, and interest as well as amortization payments over the next 12 months. FDO data are available until Q3 of 2019 (Chart 6, top panel). Hence, using this latest datapoint is pertinent to gauging the ability of individual countries to service their foreign debt over the coming six months. FFRs are the sum of FDOs in the next 12 months and current account balance (Chart 6, bottom panel). It measures the amount of foreign capital inflows required in the next 12 months for a country to cover any shortfalls in its balance of payment dynamics. Exports Coverage Of FDO: This measure compares annualized US dollar export revenues available to each country to its foreign debt service obligations in the next 12 months (Chart 7). The most vulnerable countries according to this measure are Brazil, Colombia, Turkey and Peru. On the other hand, Russia, Mexico, India & Korea have higher exports-to-FDO ratios. Chart 7Exports-To-Foreign Debt Obligations Ratio Foreign Exchange Reserves-to-FFRs Ratio: These metrics compare the size of foreign exchange reserves held by each nation’s central bank to its FFRs in the next 12 months (Chart 8). By this measure, Chile, Colombia, Turkey, Indonesia and Mexico have large FFRs relative to their central bank foreign exchange reserves. Meanwhile, Russia, Korea and Thailand fare well on this metric. Chart 8FX Reserves-To-Foreign Funding Requirements On the whole, Chart 9 is a scatter plot combining both FDO and FFR measures to determine the most and least vulnerable EMs. The most vulnerable EMs are Brazil, Turkey, Colombia and Chile. Meanwhile, Russia, Korea, India and the Philippines are the least vulnerable. Chart 9EM FX Debt And Currency Vulnerability Investment Recommendations So long as EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM foreign currency debt stress will mount, and EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads will widen. We remain bearish on EM currencies. They usually trade with the global business cycle and the latter remains in free fall. We continue recommending shorting a basket of the following currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW. There will likely be no imminent restructuring or default on public debt in mainstream EM countries, outside frontier markets like Argentina, Ecuador, Lebanon and sub-Saharan African countries. However, there could be meaningful credit stress among EM corporate issuers. Consequently, dedicated EM credit investors should overweight mainstream EM sovereign credit and underweight EM corporate debt. We continue to recommend underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus US investment-grade corporate credit (Chart 10). Not only is the Fed buying US investment-grade and some high-yield bonds but US companies will also benefit from the substantial fiscal stimulus. In EM, corporates and banks lack such support. Crucially, in contrast to US corporates, EM issuers also suffer from currency depreciation. Within the EM sovereign credit universe, our overweights are Russia, Mexico, Peru, Thailand and Malaysia. Underweights include South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines and Turkey. The rest warrant a neutral allocation within an EM sovereign credit portfolio. Finally, within corporate credit, we reiterate our long-standing recommendation of long Asian investment-grade corporates / Asian short high-yield corporate (Chart 11). We continue recommending shorting a basket of the following currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW. Chart 10Remain Underweight EM Credit Versus US IG Credit Chart 11Long Asian IG Corporate / Short Asian HY Corporate     Andrija Vesic Associate Editor andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1We will publish a report on Saudi Arabia in the coming weeks. 2We have compiled data on foreign currency securities issued by non-financial companies and banks from Bloomberg. Bloomberg data accounts for the nationality of debt issuers. For instance, a US dollar bond issued by a Brazilian corporate subsidiary or a shell company located in the Cayman Islands is counted as Brazilian foreign corporate debt, rather than a Cayman Island debt security. For foreign loans, we use the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) datasets on Banking Statistics.

Special Report

Highlights The Fed has been awfully busy since the middle of March, … : Over the last 30 days, the Fed has unleashed a barrage of measures to support market liquidity and alleviate economic hardship. … unveiling a package of facilities to keep credit flowing to consumers, businesses and municipalities, … : The Fed is building a sizable firewall against market seizure, touching on commercial paper, money market funds, asset-backed securities, small business loans, municipal notes, investment-grade corporate bonds and ETFs and high-yield corporate ETFs. … and loosening regulatory strictures to encourage banks to put their capital buffers to work: The Fed and other major bank regulators have eased some of the post-2008 rules to encourage banks to ramp up market-making activity and increase lending to cushion the shock to the economy. Investors should buy what the Fed is buying: Fixed income investors should look to capture excess spreads in markets that have not yet priced in the full effect of the Fed’s indemnity. Banks and agency mortgage REITs offer a way to implement this theme in equities. Feature What A Difference A Pandemic Makes “Whatever it takes” is clearly the order of the day for Jay Powell and company, as well as Congress and the White House, to mitigate the potentially pernicious second-round economic damage from COVID-19. In this Special Report, we detail the Fed’s key initiatives. Central banks are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and they cannot stave off all of the pressure from mass quarantines, but we do expect the Fed’s measures will cushion the economic blow, and reflate prices in targeted asset markets. The Fed began pulling out all the stops to fight the virus on Sunday, March 15th with what have now become stock emergency responses: zero rates and purchases of Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Although the MBS purchases began the week of March 23rd, and have continued at a steady clip despite appearing to have swiftly surpassed their $200 billion target, they have not yet achieved much traction in the mortgage market. The spread between the current coupon agency MBS and the 10-year Treasury yield has come down a bit, but the average 30-year fixed-rate home mortgage rate does not reflect the 150 basis points ("bps") of rate cuts since the beginning of March (Chart 1). The Fed’s measures are intended to help direct the flow of credit to adversely affected constituencies with a pressing need for it. Other measures to relieve liquidity pressures, like the Fed’s ongoing overnight repo operations, have achieved their aim. The signal indicator of liquidity strains, the effective fed funds rate, was bumping up against the top of the Fed’s target range for several days after the return to zero interest rate policy. Over the last week, however, it has settled around 5 bps, near the bottom of its range (Chart 2), suggesting that the formerly tight overnight funding market is now amply supplied. Chart 1MBS Purchases Haven't Helped Main Street Yet Chart 2Overnight Funding Stresses ##br##Have Eased The rest of the Fed’s measures (Table 1) have been more finely targeted, intended to help direct the flow of credit to adversely affected constituencies with a pressing need for it. We focus on the most important measures in the following section and summarize their common elements in Table 2. The following discussions of the individual programs highlight their intent, their chances of success, and yardsticks for tracking their progress. We conclude with the fixed income and equity niches that are most likely to benefit from the Fed’s efforts. Table 1A Frenzied Month Of Activity Table 2The 2020 Federal Reserve Emergency Programs A Field Guide To The Acronym Jungle Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF) Under the MMLF, which started on March 23rd, US banks can borrow from the Fed to purchase eligible assets mainly from prime money market funds. These assets are in turn pledged to the Fed as collateral, effectively allowing the Fed to lend to prime money market funds via banks. Assets eligible for purchase from these funds include: US Treasuries & fully guaranteed agencies Securities issued by US GSEs Asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) rated A1 or its equivalent, issued by a US issuer US municipal short-term debt (excluding variable rate demand notes) Backed by $10 billion of credit protection from the Treasury, the Fed will lend at the primary credit rate (the discount rate, currently 0.25%) for pledged asset purchases of US Treasuries, fully guaranteed agencies or securities issued by US GSEs. For any other assets pledged, the Fed will charge an additional 100 bps – with the exception of US municipal short-term debt to which the Fed only applies a 25-bps surcharge. Chart 3The MMLF Already Providing Some Relief Loans made under the MMLF are fully non-recourse (the Fed can recover nothing more from the borrower than the pledged collateral). Banks borrowing from the Fed under the MMLF bear no credit risk and have therefore been exempted from risk-based capital and leverage requirements for any asset pledged to the MMLF, an important element that should promote MMLF participation. This facility is a direct descendant of the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (AMLF), which operated from September 2008 to February 2010 to prevent a run on prime money market funds after a prominent fund “broke the buck.” Its objective is to help prime money market funds meet redemption requests from investors and increase liquidity in the markets for the assets held by these funds – most notably commercial paper where prime money market funds represent 21% of the market. Those funds have experienced large outflows in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic and building economic crisis – erasing $140 billion, or 18%, of the fund segment’s total net assets in a matter of days (Chart 3, top panel). Since it started, the MMLF has extended $53 billion of credit to prime money funds, about a third of AMLF’s output in its first 10 days of operation. The financial sector is suffering a big shock, but it is not the source of the problem like it was in 2008, so the situation is not as dire as it was in late 2008, and we are already seeing a tentative stabilization of asset outflows from money market funds. Commercial paper spreads have also narrowed, implying that the combination of the MMLF and the CPFF (see below) is having the intended effect (Chart 3, bottom panel). Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) Starting today, April 14th, the Fed will revive 2008’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) with the aim of restoring liquidity to a market where investment grade corporate borrowers raise cash to finance payroll, inventories, accounts payable and other short-term liabilities. The 2020 iteration applies to municipalities as well, extending its reach across the real economy. Via a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) (see Box) funded with a $10 billion equity investment from the Treasury Department, the CPFF will purchase US dollar-denominated investment-grade (A1/P1/F1) three-month asset-backed, corporate and municipal commercial paper priced at the overnight index swap rate (OIS) plus 110 bps. Lower-rated issuers are not eligible, but investment-grade borrowers who were downgraded to A2/P2/F2 after March 17th, 2020 can be grandfathered into the program at a higher spread of OIS+200 bps. The pricing is tighter than it was in 2008, when unsecured investment grade and asset-backed issues were priced at OIS+100 bps and OIS+300 bps, respectively, and the Fed did not have the loss protection provided by an equity investment in the SPV.   Box 1 - SPV Mechanics The Fed has set up Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) in connection with most of the facilities we examine here. Each SPV has been seeded by the Treasury department to carry out the facility’s work. The Fed lends several multiples of the Treasury’s initial equity investment to each SPV to provide it with a total capacity of anywhere from eight to fourteen times its equity capital, based on the riskiness of the assets the SPV is purchasing or lending against. The result is that most of the cash used to operate the facilities will come from the Fed in the form of loans with full recourse to the SPVs’ assets, but the Treasury department will own the equity tranche. The Treasury therefore bears the first credit losses, should any occur. Issuers are only eligible if they have issued three-month commercial paper in the twelve months preceding the March 17th announcement of the program. The Federal Reserve did not set an explicit limit on the size of the program, but funding for any single issuer is limited to the amount of outstanding commercial paper it had during that twelve-month period. The 2020 CPFF could therefore max out above $750 billion, the peak size of the domestic commercial paper market over the past year (Chart 4). If the first CPFF’s experience is any guide, however, it’s unlikely that its full capacity will be needed. Its assets peaked at $350 billion in January 2009, around a quarter of 2008’s $1.5 trillion average outstanding balance. A similar proportion today would cap the fund at $175-200 billion. As in 2008 (Chart 5, bottom panel), the mere announcement of the program has driven commercial paper spreads significantly below their previously stressed levels (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Pressure On The Domestic Commercial Paper Market... Chart 5...Is Being Relieved Ahead Of The CPFF Implementation Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) The asset-backed securities (ABS) market funds a significant share of the credit extended to consumers and small businesses. The Fed’s TALF program that started on March 23rd aims to provide US companies holding AAA collateral with funding of up to $100 billion, in the form of 3-year non-recourse loans secured by AAA-rated ABS. It will be conducted via an SPV backed by a $10 billion equity investment from the US Treasury Department. Chart 6Narrower Spreads Promote Easier Financial Conditions At The Margin Eligible collateral includes ABS with exposure to auto loans, student loans, credit card receivables, equipment loans, floorplan loans, insurance premium finance loans, SBA-guaranteed loans and leveraged loans issued after March 23rd, 2020. Last week, the Fed added agency CMBS issued before March 23rd, 2020 and left the door open to further expansion of the pool of eligible securities. The rate charged on the loans is based on the type of collateral and its weighted average life. Depending on the ABS, the spreads will range from 75 bps to 150 bps over one of four different benchmarks (LIBOR, SOFR, OIS or the upper 25-bps bound of the target fed funds range). The spreads are reasonable, and will not keep ABS holders away from the facility, but they’re not meant to be giveaways. The 2009 TALF program originally had a $200 billion capacity, which was later expanded to $1 trillion. Those numbers make the current iteration’s $100 billion limit look awfully modest, but only $71 billion worth of loans were eventually granted the first time around. ABS spreads have already narrowed significantly (Chart 6), suggesting the program is already making a difference. Although an incremental $100 billion of loans is not likely to move the needle much for the US economy, narrower spreads will promote easier financial conditions at the margin. Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) Though no firm start date has been given, the Fed will soon enter the secondary market and start purchasing corporate bonds. As with all of the other facilities discussed in this section except the MMLF, the SMCCF is set up as an SPV. It will have up to $250 billion of buying power, anchored by $25 billion of equity funding from the Treasury department. Once it’s up and running, the SMCCF will buy non-bank corporate bonds in the secondary market that meet the following criteria: Issuer rated at least BBB-/Baa3 (the lowest investment grade tier) as of March 22nd, 2020 A remaining maturity of 5 years or less Issuer is a US business with material operations, and a majority of its employees, in the US Issuer is not expected to receive direct financial assistance from the federal government The SMCCF can own a maximum of 10% of any single firm’s outstanding debt, and it may dip into the BB-rated market for securities that were downgraded from BBB after March 22nd. In addition to cash bonds, the SMCCF will also buy ETFs that track the broad corporate bond market. The Fed says that the “preponderance” of SMCCF ETF purchases will be of ETFs tracking investment grade corporate bond benchmarks (like LQD), but it will also buy some high-yield ETFs (like HYG). We expect that the SMCCF will be able to achieve its direct goal of driving down borrowing costs for otherwise healthy firms that may struggle to access credit markets in the current environment. One way to track the program’s success is to monitor investment grade corporate credit spreads (Chart 7). Spreads have been tightening aggressively since the Fed announced the program on March 23rd but are still elevated compared to average historical levels. The slope of the line of investment grade corporate bond spreads plotted by maturity will be another important metric (Chart 8). An inverted spread slope tends to coincide with a sharply rising default rate, since it signals that investors are worried about near-term default risk. By purchasing investment grade bonds with maturities of 5 years or less, the Fed hopes to maintain a positively sloped spread curve. Chart 7SMCCF Announcement Marked The Peak In Spreads Chart 8Fed Wants A Positive ##br##Spread Slope Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) The PMCCF employs the same structure as the SMCCF, but it is twice as large. The Treasury’s initial equity investment will be $50 billion and Fed loans will scale its capacity up to $500 billion. As a complement to the SMCCF, the PMCCF will purchase newly issued non-bank corporate bonds. The eligibility criteria are the same as the SMCCF’s, but the PMCCF will only buy bonds with a maturity of 4 years or less. The new issuance purchased by the PMCCF can be new debt or it can be used to refinance existing debt. The only caveat is that the maximum amount of borrowing from the facility cannot exceed 130% of the issuer’s maximum debt outstanding on any day between March 22nd, 2019 and March 22nd, 2020. Essentially, eligible firms can use the facility to refinance their entire stock of debt and then top it up by another 30% if they so choose. The goals of the PMCCF are to keep the primary issuance markets open and to prevent bankruptcy for firms that were rated investment grade before the virus outbreak. Investment grade corporate bond issuance shut down completely for a stretch in early March, but then surged once the Fed announced the PMCCF and SMCCF on March 23rd. The PMCCF will have achieved lasting traction if gross corporate bond issuance holds up in the coming months (Chart 9). It should also meet its bankruptcy-prevention goal, since firms will be able to refinance their maturing obligations and tack on some new debt to get through the next few months. Given the large amount of outstanding BBB-rated debt, a lot of fallen angel supply is poised to hit the high-yield bond market. While we expect the PMCCF will succeed in achieving its primary aims, it is unlikely to prevent a large number of ratings downgrades. If a given firm only makes use of the facility to refinance its existing debt at a lower rate, then its ability to service its debt will improve at the margin and its rating should be safe. However, any firm that increases its debt load via this facility will end up with a riskier balance sheet. Ratings agencies will not look through an increased debt burden, and we expect a significant number of ratings downgrades in the coming months (Chart 10, top panel). Chart 9Primary Markets Have Re-Opened Chart 10Fed Actions Won't Prevent Downgrades Given the large amount of outstanding BBB-rated debt, a lot of fallen angel supply is poised to hit the high-yield bond market (Chart 10, middle and bottom panels). The Fed will try to contain the surge by allowing the SMCCF to purchase fallen angel debt, and by providing some support to the upper tiers of high-yield credits through its Main Street Lending Programs. Main Street New Loan Facility (MSNLF) and Main Street Expanded Loan Facility (MSELF) The goal of the MSNLF and MSELF is to provide relief to large firms that are not investment grade credits. Both facilities will draw from the same SPV, which will be funded by a $75 billion equity stake from the Treasury and will then be levered up to a total size of “up to $600 billion” by the Fed. The Main Street facilities are structured differently than the PMCCF and SMCCF in that the Fed will not transact directly with nonfinancial corporate issuers. Rather, the Fed will purchase 95% of the par value of eligible loans from banks (which will retain 5% of the credit risk of each loan), hoping to free up enough extra room on bank balance sheets to promote more lending. To be eligible for purchase by the Main Street New Loan Facility, loans must be issued after April 8th, 2020 and meet the following criteria: Borrowers have less than 10,000 employees or $2.5 billion of 2019 revenue Borrowers are US firms with significant operations, and a majority of employees, in the US Loans are unsecured and have a maturity of 4 years Loans are made at an adjustable rate of SOFR + 250-400 bps Principal and interest payments are deferred for one year Loan size of $1 million to the lesser of $25 million or the amount that keeps the borrower’s Debt-to-EBITDA ratio below 4.01 Loan proceeds cannot be used to refinance existing debt Borrowers must commit to “make reasonable efforts to maintain payroll and retain employees during the term of the loan” The Main Street Expanded Loan Facility applies similar criteria to existing loans that banks will upsize before transferring 95% of the incremental risk to the Fed. The MSELF allows for loans up to the lesser of $150 million, 30% of the borrower’s existing debt (including undrawn commitments) or the amount keeps the borrower’s Debt-to-EBITDA ratio below 6.0. Borrowers can participate in only one of the MSNLF, MSELF and PMCCF, though they can tap the PPP alongside one of the Main Street lending facilities. Chart 11Main Street Programs Will Spur Bank Lending The Main Street facilities endeavor to have banks adopt an “originate to distribute” model. With the Fed assuming 95% of each loan’s credit risk, banks will have nearly unlimited balance sheet capacity to continue originating these sorts of loans. Retaining 5% of each loan ensures that the banks will have enough skin in the game to perform proper due diligence. We expect to see a significant increase in commercial bank C&I loan growth in the coming months once these facilities are up to speed (Chart 11). Crucially for high-yield investors, the debt-to-EBITDA constraints ensure that the Main Street facilities will aid BB- and some B-rated issuers but will not bail out high-default-risk issuers rated CCC and below. BB-rated firms typically have debt-to-EBITDA ratios between 3 and 4, while B-rated issuers typically fall in a range of 4 to 6. For the most part, BB-rated firms will be able to make use of either the MSNLF or MSELF, while B-rated firms will be limited to the MSELF. By leaving out issuers rated CCC & below, the Fed is acquiescing to a significant spike in corporate defaults over the next 12 months. The bulk of corporate defaults come from firms that were rated CCC or below 12 months prior (Chart 12). Chart 12A Significant Increase In Corporate Defaults Is Coming As with the PMCCF, we note that the Main Street facilities offer loans, not grants. While they will address firms’ immediate liquidity issues, they will do so at the cost of more indebted balance sheets. Downgrade risk remains high for BB- and B-rated companies. Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF) The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) is a component of the CARES Act that was designed to forestall layoffs by small businesses.  PPP loans are fully guaranteed by the Small Business Association (SBA), which will forgive them if the borrower maintains its employee headcount for eight weeks. The size of the PPPLF has yet to be announced, along with the details of its funding, but its intent is to get PPP loans off of issuers’ balance sheets so as to free up their capital and allow them to make more loans, expanding the PPP’s reach. The Fed will lend on a non-recourse basis at a rate of 0.35% to any depository institution making PPP loans,2 taking PPP loans as collateral at their full face value. PPP loans placed with the Fed are exempt from both risk-weighted and leverage-based capital adequacy measures (please see “Easing Up On The Regulatory Reins,” below). PPP is meant to be no less than a lifeline for households and small businesses, but the devil is in the details. Banks were reportedly overwhelmed with demand for PPP loans over the first five business days that they were available, suggesting that many small businesses still qualify, despite 17 million initial unemployment claims over the last three weeks. Media reports about the program highlighted that there are quite a few kinks yet to be worked out, and it has arrived too late to stave off the first waves of layoffs. Success may be most easily measured by the size of the PPPLF, which should eventually translate into fewer layoffs and bankruptcies than would otherwise have occurred. Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) Chart 13State & Local Governments Need Support The Municipal Liquidity Facility is similar in structure to the PMCCF, only it is designed to support state and local governments. The MLF SPV will be funded by a $35 billion equity investment from the Treasury, and the Fed will lever it up to a maximum size of $500 billion to purchase newly issued securities directly from state and local governments that meet the following criteria: All states (including D.C.) are eligible, as are cities with populations above 1 million and counties with populations above 2 million. The newly issued notes will have a maximum maturity of 2 years. The MLF can buy new issuance from any one state, city or county up to an amount equal to 20% of that borrower’s fiscal year 2017 general revenue. States can request a higher limit to procure funds for political subdivisions or instrumentalities that aren’t eligible themselves for the MLF. The MLF’s goal is to keep state and local governments liquid as they deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. The large size of the facility – $500 billion is five times 2019’s aggregate muni issuance – should allow it to meet its goal. However, as with the Fed’s other facilities, the support comes in the form of loans, not grants. The lost tax revenue and increased pandemic expenditures cannot be recovered. State and local government balance sheets will emerge from the recession weaker. We can track the program’s success by looking at the spread between municipal bond yields and comparable US Treasury yields. These spreads widened to all-time highs in March, but have since come in significantly, even for longer maturities (Chart 13). If this tightening does not continue, the Fed may eventually enter the secondary market to purchase long-maturity municipal bonds. Supporting such a fragmented market will be tricky, and the Fed may be hoping that more aid will come from Capitol Hill. Central Bank Liquidity Swaps Chart 14US Dollar Debt Is A Global Problem The global economy is loaded with USD-denominated debt issued by entities outside of the US. As of 3Q19, there was roughly $12 trillion of outstanding foreign-issued US dollar debt, exceeding the domestic nonfinancial corporate sector’s total issuance (Chart 14). As the sole provider of US dollars, the Fed has a role to play in supporting foreign dollar-debt issuers during this tumultuous period. Currency swap lines linking the Fed with other central banks can help alleviate the pressure on foreign borrowers to access the US dollars they need to service their debt. For example, once the Fed exchanges dollars for euros using its swap line with the European Central Bank (ECB), the ECB can then direct those US dollars toward USD-denominated borrowers within the Euro Area. Widening cross-currency basis swap spreads are a tried-and-true signal that US dollars are becoming too scarce. The Fed responded to widening basis swap spreads by instituting swap lines during the financial crisis and again during the Eurozone debt crisis of 2011. In both instances, the swap lines eventually calmed the market and basis swap spreads moved back toward zero (Chart 15). Chart 15The Cost Of US Dollars Since 2013, the Fed has maintained unlimited swap lines with the central banks of the Euro Area, Canada, UK, Japan and Switzerland. On March 19th, it extended limited swap lines to the central banks of Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Korea, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden. These swap lines will help ease stresses for some foreign issuers of US dollar debt, but not all. One potential problem is that the foreign central banks that acquire dollars via the swap lines may be unwilling or unable to direct those dollars to debtors in their countries. Another problem is that several emerging markets (EM) countries do not have access to the Fed’s swap facility. EM issuers account for roughly one-third of foreign-issued dollar debt (Chart 14, bottom panel). For example, the governments of the Philippines, Colombia, Indonesia and Turkey all carry large US dollar debt balances, not to mention US dollar debt issued by the EM corporate sector in non-swap line countries. Currency swap lines linking the Fed with other central banks can help alleviate the pressure on foreign borrowers to access the US dollars they need to service their debt. The swap lines that are already in place have led to basis swap spread tightening in developed markets. If global growth eventually rebounds and the dollar weakens, EM dollar-debt burdens will become easier to service. However, until that happens, a default by some foreign issuer of US dollar debt remains a non-trivial tail risk. The Fed may need to extend swap lines to more countries to mitigate this risk in the months ahead. Easing Up On The Regulatory Reins As we’ve argued in US Investment Strategy Special Reports the last two weeks, the largest US banks are extremely well capitalized.3 The Fed agrees, and over the last 30 days, it has issued six separate statements encouraging the banks to lend or to work with struggling borrowers, all but one of them in concert with its fellow banking regulators. Although the largest banks have amassed sizable capital cushions that would support increased lending, post-GFC regulations often crimp incentives to deploy them. Over the last 30 days, the Fed and the other federal regulators have granted banks relief from the key binding constraints. Those constraints fall into two broad categories: risk-based requirements, which are based on risk weightings assigned to individual assets, and leverage requirements, which are based on total assets or total leverage exposure. All banks are required to maintain minimum ratios of equity capital to risk-weighted assets under the former and to total leverage, which includes some off-balance-sheet exposures, under the latter. The three federal banking regulators have amended rules to exclude MMLF and PPP exposures from the regulatory capital denominator used to calculate risk-weighted and leverage ratios. The Fed also made a similar move by excluding Treasury securities and deposits held at the Fed from the denominator of the supplementary leverage ratio large banks must maintain (3% for banks with greater than $250 billion in assets, 5% for SIFIs). Reducing the denominators increases the banks’ ratios and expands their lending capacity. Community banks’ capital adequacy is determined by their leverage ratio (equity to total assets), and regulators have temporarily cut it to 8% from 9%. We expect that easing capital constraints will spur the banks to lend more in the coming weeks and months, but it’s not a sure thing. A clear lesson from the Bernanke Fed’s three rounds of quantitative easing is that the Fed can lead banks to water, but it can’t make them drink. A considerable amount of the funds the Fed deployed to buy Treasury and agency securities was simply squirreled away by banks, and wound up being neither lent nor spent. Lending is not the Fed’s sole focus, though: it hopes that easing capital regulations will also encourage banks and broker-dealers to ramp up their market-making activity, improving capital market liquidity across a range of instruments. Investment Implications While all of the programs discussed above have expiration dates, they can be extended if necessary. Flexible end dates illustrate the open-ended nature of the Fed’s (and Congress’) support, and help underpin our contention that more aid will be forthcoming at the drop of a hat. Confronting the most severe recession in 90 years and an especially competitive election, policymakers can be counted upon to err to the side of providing too much stimulus. That is not to say, however, that the measures amount to a justification for loading up on all risk assets. Every space will not be helped equally. Spreads for all corporate credit tiers are cheap compared to history, but only BB-rated and higher benefit from the Fed’s programs. Within US fixed income, investors should look for opportunities in sectors that offer attractive spreads and directly benefit from Fed support. In the corporate bond market this means owning securities rated BB or higher and avoiding debt rated B and below. Spreads for all corporate credit tiers are cheap compared to history (Charts 16A & 16B), but only BB-rated and higher benefit from the Fed’s programs. Some B-rated issuers will be able to access the MSELF, but Fed support for the B-rated credit tier is limited. Fed support is non-existent for securities rated CCC or lower. Chart 16AInvestment Grade Valuation Chart 16BHigh-Yield Valuation Elsewhere, several traditionally low-risk spread sectors also meet our criteria of offering attractive spreads and benefitting from Fed support. AAA-rated Consumer ABS spreads are wide and will benefit from TALF. Agency CMBS spreads are also attractive and those securities are being directly purchased by the Fed (Chart 17). We also like the opportunity in Agency bonds (the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and Supranationals, where spreads are currently well above historical levels (Chart 17, third panel). Chart 17Opportunities In Low-Risk Spread Product Chart 18Not Enough Value In Agency MBS Agency MBS are less appealing. Spreads have already tightened back to pre-COVID levels and while continued Fed buying should keep them low, returns will be much better in the investment grade corporate space (Chart 18).  Meanwhile, we would also advocate long positions in municipal bonds. Spreads are wide and the Fed is now providing support out to the 2-year maturity point (see Chart 13). We also see potential for the Fed to start purchasing longer-maturity municipal debt if spreads don’t tighten quickly enough. Chart 19Look For Attractive Spreads In Countries With Swap Lines Finally, we would also consider the USD-denominated sovereign debt of countries to which the Fed has extended swap lines, with Mexico offering a prime example. Its USD-denominated debt offers an attractive spread and it has been extended a swap line (Chart 19). In equities, agency mortgage REITs – monoline lenders that manage MBS portfolios 8-10 times the size of their equity capital – are a levered play on buying what the Fed’s buying. They were beaten up quite badly throughout March, and have been de-rated enough to deliver double-digit total returns as long as the repo market doesn’t flare up again, and agency MBS spreads do not widen anew. We see large banks as a direct beneficiary of policymakers’ efforts to limit credit distress and expect that their loan losses could ultimately be less than markets fear. While lenders have an incentive to be the first to push secured borrowers into default in a normal recession to ensure they’re first in line to liquidate collateral, they now have an incentive to keep borrowers from defaulting lest they end up having to carry the millstone of seized collateral on their balance sheets for an indefinite period. Regulatory forbearance may end up being every bit as helpful for bank book values as the ability to move securities into the Fed’s non-recourse facilities. Footnotes 1 This calculation uses 2019 EBITDA and includes undrawn loan commitments in total debt. 2 The Fed plans to expand the program to include non-bank SBA-approved lenders in the near future. 3 Please see the US Investment Strategy Special Reports, “How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 1: A 50-Year Bottom-Up Case Study,” and “How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 2: It’s Complicated,” published March 30 and April 6, 2020, respectively, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe Associate Editor jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com

Highlights US Corporates: The Fed continues to expand the reach of its extraordinary monetary policies designed to combat the COVID-19 recession, now giving itself the ability to hold BB-rated US high-yield bonds within its corporate bond buying programs. Raise allocations to US BB-rated corporates to overweight, within a neutral overall strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US high-yield. Euro Area Corporates: European investment grade corporate debt has seen significant spread widening over the past month, but spreads have stabilized with the ECB introducing a new asset purchase program with fewer restrictions. Upgrade euro area investment grade corporates to neutral from underweight on both a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Favor debt from beaten-up sectors that are already priced for severe economic weakness like Energy, Transportation and non-bank Financials. Central Banks Are A Corporate Bond Investor’s Best Friend Right Now Chart of the WeekThe Fed & ECB Are Supporting Bond Markets The actions of policymakers worldwide to help mitigate the severe economic shock from the COVID-19 recession have helped boost global risk assets over the past couple of weeks. This is particularly notable in US corporate bond markets, where credit spreads have tightened for both shorter-maturity investment grade bonds and Ba-rated high-yield (Chart of the Week). It is not a coincidence that those are the parts of the US corporate bond market that the Fed is now explicitly backstopping through its off-balance-sheet investment programs. Last week, the Fed unveiled yet another “bazooka” to help ease US financial conditions, broadening the scope of its previously investment grade-only corporate bond purchase programs to include Ba-rated high-yield corporate bonds and high-yield ETFs. In Europe, meanwhile, the European Central Bank (ECB) is also providing additional monetary support through increased asset purchases of both government and corporate debt. Those purchases are focused more on the weakest links in the euro area financial and economic chain like Italian sovereign bonds. This has helped to stabilize credit spreads for both Italian government bonds and euro area investment grade corporate debt. This support from policymakers is critical to prevent a further tightening of financial conditions during a severe global recession (Chart 2). The excess return (over government bonds) for the Bloomberg Barclays global high-yield bond index is now down 15% on a year-over-year basis. High-yield corporate bond spreads are well above the lows seen earlier this year on both sides of the Atlantic, across all credit quality tiers. In the US, spreads between credit quality tiers had widened to levels not seen in several years. Within the US investment grade universe, the gap between Baa-rated and Aa-rated spreads had widened from 20bps to 60bps (Chart 3), a level last seen in September 2011, but now sits at 39bps. Chart 2Junk Bonds Already Discount A Big Recession Chart 3The Fed Wants These Spreads To Tighten Looking in the other direction of the credit quality spectrum, the spread between Baa-rated and Ba-rated corporates – the line of demarcation between investment grade and high-yield bonds – had blown out from 132bps in February to 556bps, but is now at 360bps. This is the market pricing in the growing risk of fallen angels being downgraded from investment grade to junk. In our view, the Ba-Baa spread is the best indicator to follow to see if the Fed’s extension of its bond purchase program to high-yield is working to reduce borrowing costs for lower-rated US companies. Both in the US and Europe, we continue to recommend a credit investment strategy that favors the parts of the markets that the Fed and ECB are most directly involved in now. That means staying overweight US investment grade corporate bonds with maturities of less than five years (the Fed’s maturity limit for its bond buying program). It also means staying overweight Italian government debt versus core European equivalents. The Fed’s new extension into high-yield corporates within its buying programs means we need to upgrade our recommendation on US BB-rated high-yield to overweight within our recommended neutral strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US junk bonds. We are making that change on a tactical basis in our model bond portfolio, as well, as can be seen on pages 14-15. As the title of this Weekly Report suggests, buy what the central banks are buying. The Fed’s new extension into high-yield corporates within its buying programs means we need to upgrade our recommendation on US BB-rated high-yield to overweight within our recommended neutral strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US junk bonds. In Europe, there is now scope to also raise allocations to euro area corporate bonds, as well, as we discuss over the remainder of this report. Bottom Line: The Fed continues to expand the reach of its extraordinary monetary policies designed to combat the COVID-19 recession, now giving itself the ability to hold BB-rated US high-yield bonds within its corporate bond buying programs. Raise allocations to US BB-rated corporates to overweight within a neutral overall strategic (6-12 months) allocation to US high-yield. Looking For Value In Euro Area Investment Grade Bonds The outlook for euro area spread product does not have as clean-cut a story as is the case for US credit. The ECB is not explicitly supporting European corporate credit markets to the same degree as the Fed is with its open-ended off-balance sheet investment vehicles. While the ECB has introduced a new large €750bn asset purchase program, the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP), to help ease financial conditions in the euro area, no specific details have yet been provided specifying how much of the PEPP will go towards corporate debt versus sovereign bonds. The ECB has already loosened the country and issuer limit restrictions it has imposed on its existing Asset Purchase Program (APP), however, which means that the central bank will be very flexible with the PEPP purchases. That means helping reduce sovereign risk premiums in Peripheral Europe by buying greater amounts of Italian, Spanish and even Greek government debt. That also likely means buying more corporate debt in the most stressed sectors of the euro area economy, as needed. Greater ECB bond purchases would make euro area investment grade credit – which has seen some value restored after the recent bout of spread widening - more attractive over both tactical and strategic investment horizons. This is true even with much of the euro area now in a deep recession because of COVID-19 lockdowns, which has already been discounted in the poor investment performance of euro area corporates. Greater ECB bond purchases would make euro area investment grade credit – which has seen some value restored after the recent bout of spread widening - more attractive over both tactical and strategic investment horizons. Year-to-date, euro area corporate credit markets have been hit hard by the global credit selloff (Table 1). In total return terms denominated in euros, the Bloomberg Barclays euro area investment grade corporate bond index is down -5.0% so far in 2020. The numbers are slightly better relative to duration-matched euro area government bonds (the pure credit component), with the index excess return down -5.5% year-to-date. At the broad sector level, the laggards so far in 2020 have been the sectors most exposed to the sharp downturn in European (and global) economic growth. In excess return terms, the worst performing sectors year-to-date within the eleven major groupings shown in Table 1 have been Consumer Cyclicals (-8.5%), Transportation (-8.1%), Energy (-7.2%). The best performing sectors are those that would be categorized as less cyclical and more “defensive”, like Utilities (-4.3%), Technology (-4.3%) and Financials (-4.7%). In many ways, this is a mirror image of 2019, when Consumer Cyclicals and Transportation were among the top performers while Technology was the worst performer. Table 1Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Bond Returns Chart 4Euro Area Corporate Spreads Are Relatively Subdued Vs. Past Credit Cycles When looking at the differences in spreads between credit tiers in the euro area, the gaps are not as wide as in the US (Chart 4). The index spread on Baa-rated euro area corporates is only 44bps above that of Aa-rated credit, far below the 100bps gap seen at the peak of the 2001 and 2011 spread widening episodes and well below the 200bps witnessed in 2008. Looking at the difference between Ba-rated and Baa-rated euro area spreads paints a similar picture, with the gap between the highest high-yield credit tier and lowest investment grade credit tier now sitting at 297bps after getting as wide as 431bps in late March – close to the 500bps peak seen in 2011 but far below the 1000bps levels seen in 2001 and 2007 The broad conclusion looking strictly at credit tiers is that euro area corporates have cheapened up a bit during the COVID-19 selloff, but on a more modest scale compared to previous euro area credit cycles. A similar conclusion is reached when looking at industry-level credit spreads. The broad conclusion looking strictly at credit tiers is that euro area corporates have cheapened up a bit during the COVID-19 selloff, but on a more modest scale compared to previous euro area credit cycles. A similar conclusion is reached when looking at industry-level credit spreads. In Charts 5 & 6, we show the history of option-adjusted spreads (OAS) for the major industrial sub-groupings of the Bloomberg Barclays euro area investment grade corporate indices. Unsurprisingly, spreads look relatively wide for the biggest underperforming sectors like Energy, Consumer Cyclicals and Transportation. The spread widening has been more contained in the better performing sectors like Technology. Chart 5A Mixed Performance For Euro Area Investment Grade Spreads By Industry … Chart 6…. With Spreads Well Below 2001 And 2008 Credit Cycle Peaks When looking at the individual country corporate bond indices within the euro area, the current levels of spreads do not look particularly wide in an historical context. In Chart 7, we show a bar chart of the range of index OAS for the six largest euro area countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria). The current OAS is shown within that historical range. The chart shows that current spreads are in the middle of that range for most countries, suggesting some better value has been restored by the COVID-19 selloff but with spreads remaining relatively subdued compared to past euro area credit cycles.1 Chart 7Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Spreads By Country On a relative basis, investment grade spreads are tightest in France (203bps), the Netherlands (202bps) and Belgium (226bps), and widest in Germany (255bps), Italy (255bps), Austria (251bps) and Spain (234bps). With the ECB already promising greater flexibility in the country allocations of its sovereign bond purchases within the PEPP, Italian corporates may offer the best value within the major euro area countries. With the ECB already promising greater flexibility in the country allocations of its sovereign bond purchases within the PEPP, Italian corporates may offer the best value within the major euro area countries. We can get a better sense of relative corporate bond spread valuation at the country level by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings of those spreads. This is one of the tools we use to assess value in global credit spreads, as measured by historical “spread cushions”. Specifically, we calculate how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus duration-matched government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. In Charts 8 & 9, we show the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings for Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Austria. On this basis, the current level of spreads looks most historically attractive in Germany, Italy and France, with the breakeven spread in the upper quartile versus its history dating back to the year 2000. Spreads in Spain, Belgium and Austria also look relatively wide versus their own history, but to a lesser extent than in Germany, France and Italy. Chart 8German, Italian & French Investment Grade Corporates Offer Better Value On A Breakeven Spread Basis …. Chart 9… Than Spanish, Belgian & Austrian Investment Grade Corporates Chart 10Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Spreads Are Relatively Wide Across All Credit Tiers So while there are some modest differences in value to exploit within the euro area investment grade corporate bond universe at the country level, there is less to choose from across credit tiers. The 12-month breakeven spreads for Aaa-rated, Aa-rated, A-rated and Baa-rated euro area corporates are all within the upper quartiles of their own history (Chart 10). One other tool we can use to assess value across euro area investment grade corporates is our sector relative value framework. Borrowing from the methodology used by our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy to assess US investment grade corporates, the sector relative value framework determines “fair value” spreads for each of the major and minor industry level sub-indices of the overall euro area investment grade universe. The methodology takes each sector's individual OAS and regresses it in a cross-sectional regression with all other sectors. The independent variables in the model are each sector's duration, trailing 12-month spread volatility, and credit rating - the primary risk factors for any corporate bond. Using the common coefficients from that regression, a risk-adjusted "fair value" spread is calculated. The difference between the actual OAS and fair value OAS is our valuation metric used to inform our sector allocation ranking. The latest output from the euro area relative value spread model can be found in Table 2. We also show the duration-times-spread (DTS) for each sector in those tables, which we use as the primary way to measure the riskiness (volatility) of each sector. The scatterplot in Chart 11 shows the tradeoff between the valuation residual from our model and each sector's DTS. Table 2Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation We can then apply individual sector weights based on the model output and our desired level of overall spread risk to come up with a recommended credit portfolio. The weights are determined at our discretion and are not the output from any quantitative portfolio optimization process. The only constraints are that all sector weights must add to 100% (i.e. the portfolio is fully invested with no use of leverage) and the overall level of spread risk (DTS) must equal our desired target. The strongest overweight candidates (a DTS score equal to or greater than that of the overall index with the highest positive valuation residual) are the following euro area investment grade sectors: Packaging, Tobacco, Other Industrials, Media Entertainment, Supermarkets, Integrated Energy, Consumer Cyclical Services and all non-bank Financials (Insurance, REITs, Brokerages and Finance Companies). Against the current backdrop of euro area corporate spreads offering relatively wide spreads on a breakeven spread basis, and with the ECB providing a highly accommodative monetary backdrop that includes more purchases of both government and corporate debt, we think targeting an overall portfolio DTS greater than that of the euro area investment grade corporate bond index is reasonable. On that basis, we are looking to go overweight sectors with relatively higher DTS and positive risk-adjusted spread residuals from our relative value model (and vice versa). Those overweight candidates would ideally be located in the upper right quadrant of Chart 11. Chart 11Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Valuation Versus Risk Based on the latest output from the relative value model, the strongest overweight candidates (a DTS score equal to or greater than that of the overall index with the highest positive valuation residual) are the following euro area investment grade sectors: Packaging, Tobacco, Other Industrials, Media Entertainment, Supermarkets, Integrated Energy, Consumer Cyclical Services and all non-bank Financials (Insurance, REITs, Brokerages and Finance Companies). The least attractive sectors within this framework (negative risk-adjusted valuations) are: Senior Bank Debt, Natural Gas, Other Utilities, Metals and Mining, Chemicals, Construction Machinery, Lodging, Cable and Satellite, Restaurants, Food/Beverage, Health Care, Oil Field Services, Building Materials and Aerospace/Defense. Bottom Line: European investment grade corporate debt has seen significant spread widening over the past month, but spreads should stabilize with the ECB introducing a new asset purchase program with fewer restrictions. Upgrade euro area investment grade corporates to neutral from underweight on both a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Favor debt from beaten-up sectors that are already priced for severe economic weakness like Energy, Transportation and non-bank Financials.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For the Netherlands, there is a much shorter history of corporate bond index data available from Bloomberg Barclays than the other euro area countries shown in Chart 7. The OAS range only encompasses about seven years of data, while the other countries go back as far as the early 2000s. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Please note that we are publishing an analysis on Vietnam below. The unprecedented depth of this recession entails that many businesses will likely be operating below their break-evens for a while, even after the confinement measures are eased. Consequently, the process of bottoming in this bear market will be drawn out, and share prices will gyrate substantially in the interim. Elevated foreign currency debt levels among some EM corporations, plunging revenues and local currency depreciation combine for a perfect storm in EM corporate credit. Continue underweighting EM stocks and credit within global equity and credit portfolios, respectively. Take profits on the long EM currency volatility trade. Feature If history is any guide, the speed of the rebound in global equities is more consistent with a bear market rally than the beginning of a new bull market. Typically, for a new durable bull market to emerge after a vicious bear market, a consolidation period or a base-building phase is needed. As of now, share prices have not formed such a base. Playing bear market rallies is all about timing, in which fundamental analysis is not useful. Rebounds die as abruptly as they begin. Hence, it is all about chasing momentum on either side. The unprecedented depth of this recession heralds that many businesses will likely be operating below their break-evens for a while, even after the confinement measures are eased. We closed our absolute short position in EM equities on March 19 but we have continued shorting EM currencies versus the US dollar. Even though EM share prices have become cheap based on their cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio (Chart I-1), valuation is not a good timing tool. This is especially true for this structural valuation indicator. Chart I-1EM Equities Are As Cheap As In Previous Bottoms Why The Rebound? After the massive selloff, investor sentiment on risk assets in general, and cyclicals specifically, has become very depressed. In particular: Sentiment of traders and investment advisors on US stocks has plummeted (Chart I-2). That said, net long positions in US equity futures are still above their 2016 and 2011 lows, as we noted last week. Traders’ sentiment on cyclical currencies such as the CAD and AUD as well as on copper and oil has dropped to their previous lows (Chart I-3).  Chart I-2Investor Sentiment On US Equities Is Poor Chart I-3Investor Sentiment On Copper And Oil Is Depressed   Consistently, net long positions of investors in both copper and oil have been trimmed substantially (Chart I-4A and I-4B). Chart I-4AInvestors’ Net Long Positions In Copper... Chart I-4B…And Oil   On the whole, it should not be surprising that after having become very oversold, risk assets rebounded in the past two weeks. Nevertheless, depressed investor sentiment is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a major bear market bottom. As illustrated in Chart I-3, sentiment on oil and copper was extremely depressed in late 2014. Yet with the exception of brief rebounds, both oil and copper prices continued to plunge for about a year before bottoming in January 2016. The necessary and sufficient condition for a durable bottom in global cyclical assets is an improvement in global demand. Chart I-5The S&P 500 And VIX In The Last Two Bear Markets Given the US and Europe are still in strict confinement and the Chinese economy remains quite weak (please see our more detailed discussion on this below), the global recession is still deepening. Further, while the enormous amounts of stimulus injected by policymakers is certainly positive, it is not yet clear whether these efforts are sufficient to entirely offset the collapse in the level of economic activity and its second round effects. Nevertheless, the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have probably contained the acute phase of the financial market crisis by buying financial assets and providing credit to the real economy. Odds are that the VIX and other volatility measures will not retest their recent highs. However, this does not mean that risk assets cannot retest their lows or make fresh ones. For example, in the previous 2001-2002 and 2008 bear markets, the S&P 500 re-tested its low in early 2003 and made a deeper trough in early 2009 even though the VIX drifted lower (Chart I-5). Finally, as we discuss below, a unique feature of this recession makes it unlikely that a definite equity market bottom has been established so quickly. How This Recession Is Distinct From an investor viewpoint, this global recession stands out from others in a particularly distinct way: In an average recession, nominal output levels do not contract. In the US, since 1960 it was only during 2008 that the level of nominal GDP contracted (Chart I-6). Presently, we are experiencing the gravest collapse in nominal output/sales since the 1930s – much worse than what transpired in 2008. Chart I-6US Nominal GDP And Corporate Profits Growth When a company’s sales shrink, a critical threshold for sustainability is the level of its revenues relative to its break-even point. The latter is the level of sales where total revenue is equal to total cost – i.e., where profits are nil. Break-even points have ramifications for share prices and the shape of a potential recovery. In an average recession, break-even points for the majority of companies are not breached – i.e., they remain profitable. As a result, a moderate and sequential revival in sales boosts profits, often exponentially. Share prices react positively to even modest sequential growth. Besides, when profits are expanding, managers and owners of these businesses are often quick to augment their capital spending and hiring. A marginal and sequential recovery from this very low point is not sufficient to produce a durable bull market for stocks or corporate credit. When a company’s sales drop below its break-even level, a moderate sequential recovery in sales could be insufficient to make the company profitable. In such a case, the share price may not rally vigorously unless they had priced in a much worse outcome – i.e., a bankruptcy. Crucially, a moderate sequential revival in activity may not lead to more capital spending and hiring. Given US and global nominal GDP are presently contracting at an unprecedented double-digit pace, the revenue of a majority of companies has fallen below costs – i.e., they are presently operating below their break-evens (experiencing losses). This makes this recession distinct from others. On the whole, the loosening of confinement measures and the resumption of business operations may not be sufficient reasons to turn bullish on equities. So long as a company operates below its break-even, its share price may not rally much in response to marginal sequential growth. In short, the pace of recovery will be crucial. Yet, there is considerable uncertainty with respect to these dynamics. Such uncertainty also warrants a high equity risk premium. A U-shaped recovery is most likely, but the latter assumes that many companies will be operating with losses for some time. Consequently, odds are that the process of bottoming in this bear market will be drawn out, and share prices will gyrate substantially in the interim. Taking Pulse Of The Global Economy In our March 19 report, we argued that this global recession is much worse than the one in 2008. High-frequency data are confirming our view: The weekly US economic index from the New York Fed has plunged more than it did in 2008 (Chart I-7). Capital spending plans have been shelved around the world. Odds are many businesses will be operating below their break-evens even after confinement measures are eased. Therefore, they will not rush to invest in new capacity and equipment, or rush to hire. China is a case in point. Commodities prices on the mainland remain in a downtrend, despite the resumption of business activity (Chart I-8). This is a sign of lingering weakness in construction/capital spending. Chart I-7An Unprecedented Plunge In Economic Activity Chart I-8Commodities Prices In China Are Drifting Lower   The world’s oil consumption is presently probably down by more than 35%.  According to INRIX, US car traffic last week was 47% below its level in late February before the confinement measures were introduced. Plus, airline travel has literally ground to a halt worldwide. In China’s major cities, traffic during rush hour is re-approaching its pre-pandemic levels. However, automobile congestion data from TomTom shows that in the afternoons and evenings, traffic remains well below where it was before the lockdown. This reveals that people go to work, spend most of their time at the office, and then quickly return home. They do not go out during lunch time or in the evenings. Hence, we infer that China’s service sector remains in recession.  Chart I-9EM ex-China, Korea And Taiwan: Nominal Growth Was Very Weak Before The Pandemic  The Chinese manufacturing and service PMI indexes registered 51 and 47 respectively in March, revealing that their economic recoveries are very subdued. As per our discussion above, we suspect revenues for many businesses in February dropped below break-even levels. The fact that only about a half of both manufacturing and service sector companies said their March activity improved from February is rather underwhelming. EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan nominal GDP and core consumer price inflation were at very low levels before the pandemic (Chart I-9). The ongoing plunge in economic activity will produce the worst nominal output recession for many developing economies. Consequently, corporate profits of companies exposed to domestic demand will crash in local currency terms. Bottom Line: The unprecedented depth of this recession heralds that many businesses will likely be operating below their break-evens for a while, even after the confinement measures are eased. Thus, a marginal and sequential recovery from this very low point is not sufficient to produce a durable bull market for stocks or corporate credit. Credit Markets Hold The Key Solvency concerns for companies become acute and doubt about their debt sustainability persist when their revenues drop below their break-evens. Thus, a marginal improvement in revenue – as lockdowns worldwide are relaxed – may not suffice to produce a material tightening in EM corporate credit spreads. Playing bear market rallies is all about timing, in which fundamental analysis is not useful. Rebounds die as abruptly as they begin. Interestingly, equity markets often take their cues from credit markets. Chart I-10 demonstrates that EM US dollar corporate bond yields (inverted on the chart) correlate with equity prices. This chart unambiguously expounds that what matters for EM share prices is not US Treasurys yields but rather their own borrowing costs in US dollars. Chart I-10EM US Dollar Corporate Bond Yields And Stock Prices Presently, there are no substantive signs that US dollar borrowing costs for EM companies or sovereigns are declining. Chart I-11 illustrates that investment and high-yield corporate bond yields for aggregate EM and emerging Asia remain elevated. Remarkably, bank bond yields in overall EM and emerging Asia have not eased much (Chart I-12). The latter is crucial as banks’ external high borrowing costs will dampen their appetite to originate credit domestically. Chart I-11EM US Dollar Corporate Bond Yields Chart I-12EM Banks US Dollar Bond Yields Chart I-13EM Credit Spreads, Currencies And Commodities In turn, the direction of EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads is contingent on EM exchange rates and commodities prices, as demonstrated in Chart I-13. Credit spreads are shown inverted in both panels of this chart. We remain negative on both EM currencies and commodities prices, and argue for a cautious approach to EM credit markets.  Bottom Line: Elevated foreign currency debt levels among some EM corporations, plunging revenues and local currency depreciation combine for a perfect storm in EM corporate credit. To make matters worse, this asset class as well as EM sovereign credit were extremely overbought before this selloff. Therefore, there could be more outflows from these markets as adverse fundamentals persist.  Investment Strategy And Positions We continue to recommend underweighting EM stocks and credit versus their DM counterparts. Importantly, the EM equity index has been underperforming the global equity benchmark in the recent rebound (Chart I-14). Aggressive policy stimulus in the US and Europe have improved investor sentiment towards their credit and equity markets. Yet, the Chinese stimulus has so far been less aggressive than in the past. This will weigh on the growth outlook for emerging Asia and Latin America. The outlook for oil prices is currently a coin toss. Price volatility will remain enormous and it is not worth betting on either the long or short side of crude. Apart from oil, industrial metal prices remain at risk due to subdued demand from China. In general, this is consistent with lower EM currencies (Chart I-15).   Chart I-14Continue Underweighting EM Stocks Versus The Global Benchmark Chart I-15EM Currencies Correlate With Industrial Metals Prices Chart I-16Book Profits On Long EM Currency Volatility Trade In accordance with our discussion above that the most acute phase of this crisis might be over, we are booking profits on our long EM currency volatility trade. We recommended this trade on January 23, 2020 and the JP Morgan EM currency implied volatility measure has risen from 6% to 12% (Chart I-16). While EM currencies could still sell off, we doubt this volatility measure will make a new high. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Vietnamese Stocks: Stay Overweight Like many EM bourses, Vietnamese stocks have plunged 35% over the past two months in US dollar terms. How should investors now position themselves with regard to Vietnamese equities, in both absolute and relative terms? In absolute terms, there are near-term risks to Vietnamese equities: Vietnam’s economy is highly dependent on exports, which amount to more than 100% of the country’s GDP. The deepening global recession entails that overseas demand for Vietnamese exports will be decimated. Chart II-1 illustrates how share prices often swing along with export cycles. Customers from the US and EU, which together account for 40% of Vietnamese exports, have been cancelling their orders. In addition, the number of visitor arrivals has already dropped significantly, and tourism revenue – which amounts to about 14% of GDP – will continue to contract (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Vietnamese Stocks: Risks Are External Chart II-2Tourism Has Crashed   Nevertheless, we expect Vietnamese stocks to outperform the EM benchmark, in USD terms, both cyclically and structurally. First, Vietnam has solid macro fundamentals. The country’s annualized trade surplus has ballooned, reaching $12 billion in March (Chart II-3). Even as exports contract, the current account balance is unlikely to turn negative. Notably, Vietnam imports many of the materials required to produce its exported goods. As such, its imports will shrink along with its exports, which will support its current account balance. Meanwhile, the year-on-year growth of domestic nominal retail sales of goods has slowed down, but remains at 8% as of March, which is quite remarkable (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Vietnam Has Large Trade Surplus Chart II-4Consumer Spending To Slow But Not Contract   Second, the government has announced a sizable policy stimulus package. On March 16, the State Bank of Vietnam cut its policy rate by 50bps, from 4% to 3.5%, and its refinancing rate by 100bps, from 6% to 5%. On April 3, Vietnam's Ministry of Finance passed a fiscal stimulus package worth VND180 trillion (equal to US$7.64 billion, or 2.9% of its GDP). Third, Vietnam has contained the COVID-19 outbreak better than many other countries. With aggressive testing and isolation, the country has so far limited the infection rate to only three out of one million citizens, and reported zero deaths. This reduces the probability that Vietnam will be forced to adopt severe confinement measures that would derail its economy. This nation’s success also contrasts with the difficulties that many emerging and frontier economies are having in their struggle with COVID-19 containment.  We continue to overweight Vietnamese stocks relative to EM due to healthy fundamentals, attractive valuations, a large current account balance and a successful economic and health response to the COVID-19 outbreak. Fourth, the country remains quite competitive in global trade. For some time, multinational companies have been moving their supply chains to Vietnam in order to take advantage of its cheap and productive labor, inexpensive land and supportive government policies. As a result, Vietnamese exports have been outpacing those of China across many industries (Chart II-5). Given the geopolitical confrontation between the US and China is likely to persist over many years, more manufacturing will shift from China to Vietnam. Investment Recommendations In absolute terms, we believe Vietnamese stocks are still at risk. Stock prices falling to their 2016 low is possible over the coming weeks and months, which corresponds to a 10-15% downslide from current levels (Chart II-6, top panel). Chart II-5Vietnam Continues Gaining Export Market Share Chart II-6Vietnamese Stocks: Absolute & Relative Performance   Relative to the EM equity benchmark, however, we continue overweighting Vietnam equities, both cyclically and structurally. Technically, this bourse’s relative performance has declined to a major support line and it could be bottoming at current levels (Chart II-6, bottom panel). Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations