Asset Allocation

Highlights The global economy will contract at its fastest pace since the early 1930s, but will not slump into a depression. Easy monetary conditions, an extremely expansive fiscal policy, and solid bank and household balance sheets are crucial to the economic outlook. Risk assets remain attractive. The dollar and bonds will soon move from bull to bear markets. The credit market offers some attractive opportunities. Stocks are vulnerable to short-term profit-taking, but the cyclical outlook remains bright. Favor energy and consumer discretionary equities. Feature What a difference a month makes. US and global equities have rallied by 31.4% and 28.3% from their March lows, respectively. Last month we recommended investors shift the weighting of their portfolios to stocks over bonds. April’s dramatic turnaround has not altered our positive view of equities on a 12- to 24-month basis, especially relative to government bonds. However, the probability of near-term profit taking is significant. The spectacular dislocation in the oil market also has grabbed headlines. This was a capitulation event. Hence, assets linked to oil are now cyclically attractive, even if they remain volatile in the coming weeks. It is time to buy energy equities, especially firms with solid balance sheets and proven dividend records. Under the IMF’s base case, the resulting output loss will total $9 trillion. Finally, the Federal Reserve’s large liquidity injections have dulled the dollar’s strength. While the USD still has some upside risk in the near term, investors should continue to transfer capital into foreign currencies. A weaker dollar will be the catalyst to lift Treasury yields and will contribute to the outperformance of energy stocks. Dismal Growth Versus Vigorous Policy Responses Chart I-1Consumer Spending Is In Freefall Consumer Spending Is In Freefall Consumer Spending Is In Freefall The economic lockdowns and the collapse in consumer confidence continue to take their toll on the US and global economies (Chart I-1). The eventual end of the shelter-at-home orders and the progressive re-opening of the economy will halt this trend. The rapid monetary and fiscal easing worldwide will allow growth to recover smartly in the second half of the year, but only after authorities loosen extreme social distancing measures. The Economy Is In Freefall… First-quarter US growth is already as weak as it was at the depth of the recession that followed the Great Financial Crisis. The second quarter will be even more anemic. Our Live-Trackers for both the US and global economies either continue to collapse or have flat-lined at rock-bottom levels (Chart I-2). US industrial production is falling at a 21% quarterly annualized rate and the weakness in the PMI manufacturing survey warns that the worst is yet to come. In March, retail sales contracted by 8.7% compared with February, which was the poorest reading on record, and year-on-year comparisons will only deteriorate further. Annual GDP growth could fall below -11% next quarter with both the industrial and consumer sectors in shock, according to the New York Fed Weekly Economic Index (Chart I-3). Chart I-2No Hope From The Live Trackers May 2020 May 2020 Chart I-3Real GDP Growth Is Melting Real GDP Growth Is Melting Real GDP Growth Is Melting The IMF expects the recession to eclipse the post GFC-slump, in both advanced and emerging economies. Its most recent World Economic Outlook describes base-case 2020 growth of -5.9%, -7.5%, and -1.0% in the US, Eurozone and emerging markets, respectively. This compares with -2.5%, -4.5% and 2.8% each in 2009. If a second wave of infections forces renewed lockdowns in the fall, then 2020 growth could be 5.12% and 4.49% lower than baseline in developed markets and emerging markets, respectively. Under the IMF’s base case, the resulting output loss will total $9 trillion in the coming 3 years (Chart I-4). Chart I-4An Enormous Output Gap Is Forming May 2020 May 2020 Chart I-5Disinflation Build-Up Disinflation Build-Up Disinflation Build-Up An output gap of the magnitude depicted by the IMF will dampen inflation for the next 12 to 24 months. In addition to the shortfall in aggregate demand, imploding economic confidence and the lag effect of the Fed’s monetary tightening in 2018 will pull down the velocity of money even further. This combination will reduce US inflation to 1.5% or lower (Chart I-5, top panel). The Price Paid component of both the Philly Fed and Empire State Manufacturing Surveys already captures this impact. The return of producer price deflation in China guarantees that weak US import prices will add to domestic deflationary pressures (Chart I-5 third panel). The recent strength in the dollar will only amplify imported deflation (Chart I-5, bottom panel). A deflationary shock is an immediate problem for businesses and creates a huge risk for household incomes because it exacerbates the already violent contraction in aggregate demand. In the coming months, the weakest nominal GDP growth since the Great Depression will depress profits. BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy team expects S&P 500 operating earnings per share to drop from $162 in 2019 to no further than $104 in 2020.1 The profits of small businesses will suffer even more. Cash flow shortfalls will also cause corporate defaults to spike because many firms will not be able to service their debt (Chart I-6). Currently, 86% of the job losses since the onset of the COVID-19 crisis are temporary. However, if corporate bankruptcies spike too fast and too high, then these job losses will become permanent and household incomes will not recover quickly. A sharp but brief recession would turn into a long depression. Chart I-6Defaults Can Only Rise Defaults Can Only Rise Defaults Can Only Rise …But The Liquidity Crisis Will Not Morph Into A Solvency Crisis… In response to the aggregate demand shock caused by COVID-19, global central banks are supporting lending. These policies are an essential ingredient to flatten the default curve and minimize the permanent hit to employment and household income. The US Fed is acting as the central banker to the world. The US Fed is acting as the central banker to the world. Its new quantitative easing program has already added $1.36 trillion in excess reserves this quarter. Moreover, the Fed’s decision to loosen supplementary liquidity ratios and capital adequacy ratios allows the interbank and offshore markets to normalize. Meanwhile, the Fed’s swap lines with global central banks have surged by $432 billion since the crisis began. Its FIMA facility also permits central banks to pledge Treasurys as collateral to receive US dollars. These two programs let global central banks provide dollar funding to the private sector outside the US. Chart I-7Easing Liquidity Stress Easing Liquidity Stress Easing Liquidity Stress The Fed is also supporting the credit market directly. The $250 billion Secondary Market Corporate Facility, the $500 billion Primary Market Corporate Facility and the $600 billion Main Street New Loan and Expanded Loan Facilities, all mean that firms with a credit rating above Baa or a debt-to-EBITDA ratio below 4x can still get funding. Together with the $100 billion Term-Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility, these measures will prevent a liquidity crisis from morphing into a solvency crisis in which healthier borrowers cannot roll over their debt. Such a crisis would magnify the inevitable increase in defaults manyfold.  The market is already reflecting the impact of the Fed’s programs. Corporate spreads for credit tiers affected by the Fed’s support are narrowing (Chart I-7). Spreads reflective of liquidity conditions, such as the FRA-OIS gap, the Commercial paper-OIS spread and cross-currency basis-swap spreads, have also begun to normalize. The narrowing of bank CDS spreads demonstrates that unlike the GFC, the current crisis does not threaten the viability of major commercial banks (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Other central banks are doing their share. The Bank of Canada is buying provincial debt to ensure that the authorities directly tasked with managing the pandemic have the ability to do so. The European Central Bank has enacted a QE program of at least EUR1.1 trillion and enlarged the TLTRO facility while decreasing its interest rate, which cheapens the cost of financing for commercial banks. Moreover, the ECB has also eased liquidity and capital adequacy ratios for commercial banks. Last week, it announced that it would also accept junk bonds as collateral, as long as these bonds were rated as investment grade prior to April 7, 2020. …And Governments Are Pulling Levers… Chart I-8Record Fiscal Easing May 2020 May 2020 Governments, too, are ensuring that private-sector default rates do not spike uncontrollably and doom the economy to a repeat of the 1930s. Policymakers in the G-10 and China have announced larger stimulus packages than the programs implemented in the wake of the GFC (Chart I-8). The US’s programs already total $2.89 trillion or 13% of 2020 GDP. Germany is abandoning fiscal discipline and has declared stimulus measures totaling 12% of GDP. Italy’s package is more modest at 3% of GDP. Even powerhouse China is not taking chances. In addition to a larger fiscal package than in 2008, the reserve requirement ratio stands at 9.5%, the lowest level in 13 years, and the People’s Bank of China cut the rate of interest on excess reserves by 37 basis points to 0.35% (Chart I-9). The last cut to the IOER was in November 2008 and was of 27 basis points. This interest rate easing preceded a CNY4 trillion increase in the stock of credit, which played a major role in the global recovery that began in 2009. Hence, the recent IOER reduction, in light of the decline in loan prime rates and MLF rates, suggests that China is getting ready to boost its economy by as much as in 2008. Chart I-9China Is Pressing On The Gas Pedal China Is Pressing On The Gas Pedal China Is Pressing On The Gas Pedal Among the advanced economies, loan guarantees supplement growing deficits. So far, this protection totals at least $1.3 trillion. While guarantees do not directly boost the income and spending of the private sector, they address the risk of an uncontrolled spike in defaults. Therefore, they minimize the odds that rocketing temporary layoffs will morph into permanent unemployment. Section II, written by BCA’s Jonathan Laberge, addresses the question of fiscal policy and whether the packages announced so far are large enough to fill the hole created by COVID-19. While a deep recession is unavoidable, governments will provide more stimulus if activity does not soon stabilize. … While Banks And Household Balance Sheets Compare Favorably To 2008 Banks and the household sector, the largest agent in the private sector, entered 2020 on stronger footing than prior to the GFC. Otherwise, all the fiscal and monetary easing in the world would do little to support the global economy. If banks were as weak as when they entered the GFC, then monetary stimulus would have remained trapped in the banking system in the form of excess reserves. Both in the US and in the euro area, banks now possess higher capital adequacy ratios than in 2008 (Chart I-10). Moreover, as BCA Research’s US Investment Strategy service has demonstrated, the large cash holdings and low loan-to-deposit ratio of the US banking system reinforces its strength (Chart I-11).2  Thus, banks are unlikely to tighten credit standards for as long as they did after the GFC. Broad money expansion should outpace the post-GFC experience, as the surge in US M2 growth to a post-war record of 16% indicates. Chart I-10Banks Have More Capital Than In 2008… May 2020 May 2020 Chart I-11...And Have More Cash And Secure Funding ...And Have More Cash And Secure Funding ...And Have More Cash And Secure Funding     Consumers are also in better shape than in 2008. Last December, US household debt stood at 99.7% of disposable income compared with a peak of 136% in 2008. More importantly, financial obligations represented only 15.1% of disposable income, a near-record low. Limited financial obligations suggest that consumer bankruptcies should remain manageable as long as governments help households weather the current period of temporary unemployment (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, household indebtedness in Spain and Ireland has collapsed from 137% to 94% and from 183% to 85% of disposable income, respectively. Italy, despite its structural economic weakness, always sported a low private-sector debt load. A precautionary rise in the savings rate is unavoidable, but it will not match the magnitude of the increase that followed the GFC. The economy will recover quicker than it did following the GFC. The deep recession engulfing the world should not evolve into a prolonged depression because banks and household balance sheets are in a better state than in 2008. While the recovery will be chaotic, the velocity of money will not remain as depressed for as long as it stayed after 2008, which will allow nominal GDP to recover faster than after the GFC. Banks and households will be quicker to lend and borrow from each other than they were after the GFC. Consequently, the collapse in the consumption of durable goods (e.g. cars) has created pent-up demand, but not a permanent downshift in the demand curve (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Robust Household Finances Robust Household Finances Robust Household Finances Chart I-13Households' Pent-Up Demand Households' Pent-Up Demand Households' Pent-Up Demand   Bottom Line: The global economy is on track to suffer its worst contraction since the 1930s. However, the combination of aggressive monetary and fiscal stimulus will prevent a rising wave of defaults from swelling to a crippling tsunami that permanently curtails household income. Given that banks and households have stronger balance sheets than in 2008, when governments ease lockdowns, the economy will recover quicker than it did following the GFC. The evolution of any second wave of infection is the crucial risk to this view. The IMF’s forecast indicates that growth will suffer substantial downside relative to its baseline scenario if the second wave is strong and forces renewed lockdowns. In this scenario, the current package of stimulus must be augmented to avoid a depression-like outcome. A big problem for forecasters, is that we do not have a good sense of how the second wave of infections will evolve. Moreover, the ability to test the population and engage in contact tracing will determine how aggressive lockdowns will be. Therefore, we currently have very little visibility to handicap the odds of each path. Investment Implications Low inflation for the next 18 months will allow monetary conditions to stay extremely accommodative. Growth will recover in the second half of 2020, so the window to own risk assets remains fully open as long as we can avoid a second wave of complete lockdowns. The Dollar’s Last Hurrah The US dollar has become dangerously expensive. According to a simple model, the dollar trades at a premium to its purchasing-parity equilibrium against major currencies, which is comparable to 1985 or 2002 when it attained its most recent cyclical tops (Chart I-14). The dollar may not trade as richly against our Behavioral Effective Exchange Rate model, but this fair value estimate has rolled over (Chart I-14, bottom panel). A peak in global policy uncertainty may be the key to timing the start of the dollar’s decline. Policy will prompt downside risk created by the dollar’s overvaluation. The US twin deficit, which is the sum of the fiscal and current account deficits, is set to explode because Washington will expand the fiscal gap by 15~20% of GDP while the private sector will not increase its savings rate at the same pace. If US real interest rates are high and rising, then foreign investors will snap up US liabilities and finance the twin deficit. If real rates are low and falling, then foreigners will demand a much cheapened dollar (which would embed higher long-term expected returns) to buy US liabilities (Chart I-15). Chart I-14The Dollar Is Pricey The Dollar Is Pricey The Dollar Is Pricey Chart I-15Bulging Twin Deficits Are A Worry Bulging Twin Deficits Are A Worry Bulging Twin Deficits Are A Worry   Real interest rates probably will not climb, hence the twin deficit will become an insurmountable burden for the dollar. The Fed has not hit its symmetric 2% inflation target since the GFC and will not do so in the next one to two years. As a result, the Fed will not lift nominal interest rates until inflation expectations, currently at 1.14%, return to the 2.3% to 2.5% zone consistent with investors believing that the Fed is achieving its mandate. Thus, real interest rates will decline, which will drag down the USD. Relative money supply trends also point to a weaker dollar in the coming 12 months (Chart I-16). The Fed is easing policy more aggressively than other central banks and US banks are better capitalized than European or Japanese ones. Therefore, US money supply growth should continue to outpace foreign money supply. The inevitable slippage of dollars out of the US economy, especially if the current account deficit widens, will boost the supply of dollars globally relative to other currencies. Without any real interest rate advantage, the USD will lose value against other currencies. China’s policy easing is also negative for the dollar. China’s large-scale stimulus will allow the global industrial cycle to recover smartly in the second half of 2020, especially if the increase in pent-up demand fuels realized demand in the fall. The US economy’s closed nature and low exposure to both trade and manufacturing will weigh on US internal rates of return relative to the rest of the world, and invite outflows (Chart I-17). This selling will accentuate downward pressure created by the aforementioned balance of payments and policy dynamics.  Chart I-16Money Supply Trends Will Hurt The Dollar Money Supply Trends Will Hurt The Dollar Money Supply Trends Will Hurt The Dollar Chart I-17The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency   The dollar is also vulnerable from a technical perspective. A record share of currencies is more than one-standard deviation oversold against the USD (Chart I-18). According to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), outflows from EM economies have already eclipsed their 2008 records, and the underperformance of DM assets suggests that portfolio managers have aggressively abandoned non-USD assets. These developments imply that investors who wanted to move money back into the US have already done so. Chart I-18The Dollar Is Becoming Overbought The Dollar Is Becoming Overbought The Dollar Is Becoming Overbought Chart I-19The Dollar Is A Momentum Currency May 2020 May 2020 Investors should move funds out of the dollar, but not aggressively. The outlook for the dollar in the next year or two is poor, but the USD’s most important tailwind is intact: the global economy will recover, but for the time being, it remains in freefall. Moreover, among the G-10 currencies, the dollar responds most positively to the momentum factor (Chart I-19), which remains another tailwind. The greenback will remain volatile in the coming weeks. EM currencies offer a particularly tricky dilemma. They have cheapened to levels where historically they offer very compelling long-term returns (Chart I-20). However, EM firms have large amounts of dollar-denominated debt. The fall in EM FX and collapse in domestic cash flows will likely cause some large-scale bankruptcies. If a large, famous EM company defaults, then the headline risk would probably trigger a broad-based selling of EM currencies. For now, our Emerging Market Strategy service recommends that, within the EM FX space, investors favor the currencies with the lowest funding needs, such as the RUB, KRW and THB.3 Chart I-20EM FX Is Decisively Cheap EM FX Is Decisively Cheap EM FX Is Decisively Cheap For tactical investors, a peak in global policy uncertainty may be the key to timing the start of the dollar’s decline (Chart I-21). This implies that if a second wave of infections force severe lockdowns, the dollar rally may not be done. Chart I-21Uncertainty Must Recede For The Dollar To Weaken Uncertainty Must Recede For The Dollar To Weaken Uncertainty Must Recede For The Dollar To Weaken Fixed Income Government bonds have not yet depreciated and the exact timing of a price decline remains uncertain. However, Treasurys and Bunds offer an increasingly poor cyclical risk-reward ratio. Bond valuations continue to deteriorate. Our time-tested BCA Bond Valuation model shows that G-10 bonds, in general, and US Treasurys, in particular, are at their most expensive levels since December 2008 and March 1985, two periods that preceded major increases in yields (Chart I-22). Buy inflation-protected securities at the expense of nominal bonds. Liquidity conditions also represent a threat for safe-haven bonds. The wave of liquidity unleashed by global central banks is meeting record fiscal thrust. Thus, not only is the supply of government bonds increasing, but a larger proportion of the money injected by central banks will actually make its way into the real economy than after 2008. Record-low yields are vulnerable because the increase in the global money supply should prevent nominal GDP growth from slumping permanently as in the 1930s and after the GFC. Additionally, the sharp escalation in liquid assets on the balance sheets of commercial banks also creates an additional risk for bond prices (Chart I-23). Chart I-22Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Chart I-23Liquidity Injections Point To Higher Yields Liquidity Injections Point To Higher Yields Liquidity Injections Point To Higher Yields   QE also threatens government fixed income. After the GFC, real interest rates fell because investors understood that US short rates would remain at zero for a long time. Yet, 10-year Treasury yields rose sharply in 2009 as inflation breakevens increased more than the decline in TIPS yields. This pattern repeated itself following each QE wave (Chart I-24). In essence, if the Fed provides enough liquidity to allow markets to function well, then the chance of cyclical deflation decreases, which warrants higher inflation expectations. A lower dollar will be fundamental to the rise in inflation breakeven and yields. A soft dollar will confirm that the Fed is providing enough liquidity to satiate dollar demand and it will favor risk-taking around the world. Moreover, it will boost commodity prices and help realize inflation increases down the line. Chart I-24QE Lifts Breakevens And Yields QE Lifts Breakevens And Yields QE Lifts Breakevens And Yields Technical considerations also point to the end of the bond bull market, at least for the next 12 to 18 months. Investors remain bullish toward bonds, which is a contrarian signal. Our Composite Momentum Indicator has reached levels last achieved at the end of 2008, which suggested at that time that bond-buying was long in the tooth. Chart I-25Inflation Will Drive US/German Spreads Inflation Will Drive US/German Spreads Inflation Will Drive US/German Spreads In this context, investors with a cyclical investment horizon should consider bringing duration below benchmark. In the short term, this position still carries significant risks because the outlook for yields depends on the dollar. Another dollar spike caused by renewed lockdowns would also pin yields near current levels for longer. A lower-risk version of this bet would be to buy inflation-protected securities at the expense of nominal bonds, a position recommended by our US Bond Strategy service.4  Investors should be careful when betting that US yields will further converge toward German ones. The 10-year yield spread between US Treasurys and German Bunds has quickly narrowed, falling by 170 basis points from a high of 279 basis points in November 2018. Despite this sharp contraction, the spread remains elevated by historical standards. So far, the declining yield gap reflects the fall in policy rates in the US relative to Europe. Given that both the Fed and the ECB are at the lower bounds of their policy rates, short-rate differentials are unlikely to compress further. Instead, inflation differentials between the US and Europe must decline (Chart I-25). The inflation gap between the US and Europe probably will not narrow significantly this year. The IMF forecasts that Europe’s economy will underperform the US. Therefore, slack in Europe will expand faster than in the US. Moreover, monetary and fiscal support in the US is more aggressive than in Europe. Consequently, a weaker dollar, which will increase US inflation expectations relative to Europe, will put upward pressure on the US/German 10-year spread. However, if the European fiscal policy response starts to match the size of the US stimulus, then the spread between the US and Germany would narrow further. Ample liquidity also continues to underpin equity prices. Finally, for credit investors, our US Bond Strategy service recommends buying securities with abnormally large spreads and which the various Fed programs target. These include agency CMBS, consumer ABS, municipal bonds, and corporates rated Ba and above.5 Equities Chart I-26Investors Are Not Exuberant About Stocks Investors Are Not Exuberant About Stocks Investors Are Not Exuberant About Stocks Despite some short-term risks, we continue to favor equities on a 12- to 18-month investment horizon in an environment where a second wave of lockdowns can be avoided. Stock valuations have deteriorated, but they remain broadly attractive (see page 2 of Section III). While multiples are not particularly cheap, the equity risk premium remains very high. Alternatively, the expected growth rate of long-term earnings embedded in stock prices continues to hover at the bottom of its post-war distribution (Chart I-26). In other words, stocks are attractive because bond yields are low. Ample liquidity also continues to underpin equity prices. Our US Financial Liquidity Index points to rising S&P 500 returns in the coming months (Chart I-27). The Fed’s surging liquidity injections, which foreign central banks are mimicking, will only accentuate this backdrop. Moreover, in times of crisis, inflation expectations correlate positively with stock prices because “bad deflation” represents an existential threat to profitability.6 QE lifts inflation expectations, therefore, its bearish impact on bond prices should not translate into a fall in stock prices. Chart I-27Ample Liquidity For The S&P 500 Ample Liquidity For The S&P 500 Ample Liquidity For The S&P 500 Chart I-28Valuation And Monetary Condition Offset COVID-19 Valuation And Monetary Condition Offset COVID-19 Valuation And Monetary Condition Offset COVID-19 The combined valuation and liquidity backdrop are accommodative enough for stocks to persevere higher, despite the immense economic shock generated by COVID-19. The readings of our BCA Valuation and Monetary Indicator are even more accommodative for stocks than they were in Q1 2009, which marked the beginning of a 340% bull market (Chart I-28). Moreover, trend growth may have been less negatively affected by COVID-19 than it was by the GFC. Consequently, our US Equity Strategy service uses the historical pattern of profit rebounds subsequent to recessions to anticipate 2021 S&P 500 earnings per share of $162.1 Technicals remain supportive for stocks on a cyclical basis. Sentiment and momentum continue to be depressed, which could explain the resilience of stocks. Indeed, our Composite Momentum Indicator based on both the 13-week rate of change of the S&P 500 and traders’ sentiment lingers at the bottom of its historical distribution (Chart I-29). Moreover, the percentage of stocks above their 30-week moving average or at 52-week highs suggests that the average stock is still oversold (Chart I-30). Chart I-29Cyclical Momentum Is Not A Risk Yet Cyclical Momentum Is Not A Risk Yet Cyclical Momentum Is Not A Risk Yet Chart I-30The Median Stock Remains Oversold The Median Stock Remains Oversold The Median Stock Remains Oversold The problem for equity indices is that some sectors, such as tech, are very overbought on a near-term basis, which could invite profit-taking among the names that account for a disproportionate share of the index. If these sectors correct meaningfully, then the whole index would fall even if the median stocks barely vacillate. Nonetheless, all the forces listed in Section I suggest that the correction will not develop into a new down leg for the market. Energy stocks offer an attractive opportunity for investors, a view shared by our US Equity Strategy colleagues.1 The energy sector trades at its largest discount to the broad market on record and a weaker dollar normally lifts its relative performance (Chart I-31). Moreover, energy stocks have modestly outperformed the market since its March 23 bottom, despite the abyss into which oil prices tumbled. A pair trade is also available to investors. Healthcare and tech stocks have rallied in parabolic fashion relative to energy stocks. Oil may have capitulated on April 20 when the WTI May contract hit $-40/bbl. Storage capacity is essentially maxed out, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is set to restrict production from 12.3 million b/d to 8.5 million b/d, which will contribute generously to the 10 million bpd cut agreed by OPEC+. Countries such as Canada are also curtailing output, a move repeated among many oil producers. US shale firms, which have become marginal producers of oil, are also paring down their production. Shale producers are not done cutting, judging by both the decline in horizontal rig counts and WTI trading below most marginal costs (Chart I-32). The oil market will move away from its surplus position when the global economy restarts. Chart I-31An Opportunity In Energy An Opportunity In Energy An Opportunity In Energy Chart I-32Shale Production Will Fall Much Further Shale Production Will Fall Much Further Shale Production Will Fall Much Further   The slope of the oil curve confirms that the outlook for energy stocks is improving. On April 20, Brent and WTI hit their deepest contango on record, a development accentuated by the reflexive relationship between major oil ETFs and the price of the commodity itself. The structure of those ETFs was amended on April 21st, allowing a break in this reflexive relationship. The oil curve is again steepening, which after such a large contango often results in higher crude prices (Chart I-33). Meanwhile, net earnings revisions for the energy sector have become very depressed. Relative to the broad market, revisions are also weak but turning up. In this context, rising oil prices can easily lift energy stocks relative to the broad market. Chart I-33A Decreasing Contango Would Boost Oil Stocks A Decreasing Contango Would Boost Oil Stocks A Decreasing Contango Would Boost Oil Stocks Chart I-34Parabolic Moves Are Rarely Durable Parabolic Moves Are Rarely Durable Parabolic Moves Are Rarely Durable   A pair trade is also available to investors. Healthcare and tech stocks have rallied in parabolic fashion relative to energy stocks (Chart I-34). We constructed a global sector ranking based on the bottom-up valuation scores from BCA Research’s Equity Trading Strategy service. Based on this metric, energy stocks are attractively valued, while tech and healthcare are not (Chart I-35). A rebound in oil prices should prompt some portfolio rebalancing in favor of the energy sector.   Chart I-35A Bottom-Up Ranking For Sectors Valuations May 2020 May 2020 Finally, our US Equity Sector Strategy service also recommends investors overweight consumer discretionary stocks. This sector will benefit because robust household balance sheets will allow consumers to take advantage of low interest rates when the global economy recovers.7 Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 30, 2020 Next Report: May 28, 2020   II. The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough? In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart II-1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23rd, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart II-1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures May 2020 May 2020 Chart II-1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Instead, Chart II-2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.8 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart II-2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures May 2020 May 2020 Analysis by Bruegel provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table II-1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table II-1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries May 2020 May 2020 Table II-1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Chart II-3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.9 Chart II-3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart II-3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not May 2020 May 2020 Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts II-1 – II-3 and Table II-1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart II-4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart II-4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart II-4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect May 2020 May 2020 The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart II-5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). Chart II-5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects May 2020 May 2020 The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart II-5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables II-2 and II-3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. Table II-2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions May 2020 May 2020 Table II-3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound May 2020 May 2020 The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables II-2 and II-3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table II-2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Second, Table II-3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box II-1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box II-1 The “Bucket” Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The IMF “bucket” approach to estimating fiscal multiplier involves determining the multiplier that is likely to apply to a given country during “normal” circumstances, based on a set of structural characteristics associated with larger multipliers. This “normal” multiplier is then adjusted based on the following formula: M = MNT * (1+Cycle) * (1+Mon) Where M is the final multiplier estimate, MNT is the “normal times” multiplier derived from structural characteristics, Cycle is the cyclical factor ranging from −0.4 to +0.6, and Mon is the monetary policy stance factor ranging from 0 to 0.3. The Cycle factor is higher the more a country’s output gap is negative, and the Mon factor is higher the closer the economy is to the zero lower bound. Table II-B1 applies the IMF’s approach to the US, using the same structural score as the IMF presented in the note that described the approach. The table highlights that the approach suggests a US fiscal multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 given the maximum cycle adjustment proscribed by the rule, which we feel is reasonable given the unprecedented rise in US unemployment. We make no adjustment to the range for the zero lower bound. Table II-B1A Multiplier Estimate Of 1.1 – 1.6 Seems Reasonable For The US May 2020 May 2020 The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts II-1 - II-3 on pages 28-31. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. Chart II-6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses May 2020 May 2020 For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart II-6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart II-6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table II-4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance. The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments. Table II-4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs May 2020 May 2020 Firms: On April 16th the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured. However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table II-5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The Table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. Table II-5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income May 2020 May 2020 Chart II-7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response. The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30th when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent. Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart II-7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.10 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart II-8 reproduces Chart II-3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart II-8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart II-8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Chart II-8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany May 2020 May 2020 Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table II-6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.11 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table II-6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave May 2020 May 2020 The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31st or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table II-6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart II-9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart II-9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State May 2020 May 2020 Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart II-10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart II-10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart II-11). Chart II-11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort May 2020 May 2020 Chart II-12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart II-12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Chart II-13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Third, Chart II-13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we took a more positive stance on equities as both our valuation and monetary indicators had moved decisively into accommodative territory. While the global economy was set to weaken violently, the easing in our indicators suggested that stocks offered an adequate risk/reward ratio to take some risk. This judgment was correct. On a cyclical basis, the same factors that made us willing buyers of stocks remain broadly in place. Stocks are not as cheap as they were in late March, but monetary conditions have only eased further. Moreover, we are starting to get more clarity as to the re-opening of most Western economies because new reported cases of COVID-19 are peaking. Finally, the VIX has declined substantially but is nowhere near levels warning of an imminent risk to stocks and sentiment is still subdued. Tactically, equities are becoming somewhat overbought. However, this impression is mostly driven by the rebound in tech stocks and the strong performance posted by the healthcare sector. The median stock remains quite oversold. In this context, if the S&P 500 were to correct, we would not anticipate this correction to morph into a new down leg in the bear market that would result in new lows below the levels reached on March 23. For now, the most attractive strategy to take advantage of the supportive backdrop for stocks is to buy equities relative to bonds. In contrast to global bourses, government bonds are still massively overbought and trading at their largest premium to fair value since Q4 2008 and late 1985. Additionally, the vast sums of both monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy should lift inflation expectations and thus, bond yields. Real yields will likely remain at very low levels for an extended period of time as short rates are unlikely to rise anytime soon. The yield curve is therefore slated to steepen further. The dollar has stabilized since we last published but it has not meaningfully depreciated. On the one hand, the threat of an exploding twin deficit and a Fed working hard to address the dollar shortage and keep real rates in negative territory are very bearish for the dollar. But on the other hand, free-falling global growth and spiking policy uncertainty are highly bullish for the Greenback. A stalemate was thus the most likely outcome. However, we are getting closer to a rebound in growth in Q3, which means that the balance of forces will become an increasingly potent headwind for the expensive dollar. Thus, it remains appropriate to use rallies in the dollar to offload this currency. Finally, commodities continue to linger near their lows, creating a mirror image to the dollar. They are still very oversold and sentiment has greatly deteriorated, except for gold. Thus, if as we expect, the dollar will soon begin to soften, then commodities will appreciate in tandem. The move in oil prices was particularly dramatic this month. The oil curve is in deep contango and oil producers from Saudi Arabia to the US shale patch have begun cutting output. Therefore, oil is set to rally meaningfully as the global economy re-opens for business. The large balance sheet expansion by the Fed and other global central banks will only fuel that fire. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1  Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Gauging Fair Value," dated April 27, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see US Investment Strategy Special Report "How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 1: A 50-Year Bottom-Up Case Study," dated March 30, 2020 and US Investment Strategy Special Report "How Vulnerable Are US Banks? Part 2: It’s Complicated," dated April 6, 2020 available at usis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM Domestic Bonds And Currencies," dated April 23, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Buying Opportunities & Worst-Case Scenarios," dated March 17, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Life At The Zero Bound," dated March 24, 2020 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Is The Bottom Already In?" dated April 21, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report "Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed's Anti-Virus Measures," dated April 14, 2020 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 “Bad deflation” reflects poor demand, which constrains corporate pricing power. “Good deflation” reflects productivity growth. Good deflation?? does not automatically extend to declining real profits and it is not linked with falling stock prices. The Roaring Twenties are an example of when “good deflation” resulted in a surging stock market. 7  Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril," dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 8  Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 9  Please note that Chart II-3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 10 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, www.bcaresearch.com. 11 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.

Highlights The six-month increase in European bank credit flows amounts to an underwhelming $70 billion, compared to a record high $660 billion in the US and $550 billion in China. Underweight European domestic cyclicals versus their peers in the US and China. Specifically, underweight euro area banks versus US banks. Overweight equities on a long-term (2 years plus) horizon. The mid-single digit return that equities are offering makes them attractive versus ultra-low yielding bonds. But remain neutral equities on a 1-year horizon, until it becomes clear that we can prevent a second wave of the pandemic. Fractal trade: long bitcoin cash, short ethereum. Feature Chart I-1Bank Credit 6-Month Flow Up $70 Bn ##br##In The Euro Area… Bank Credit 6-Month Flow Up $70 Bn In The Euro Area... Bank Credit 6-Month Flow Up $70 Bn In The Euro Area... Chart I-2…But Up $700 Bn ##br##In The US ...But Up $700 Bn In The US ...But Up $700 Bn In The US Governments and central banks are dishing out an alphabet soup of stimulus. The question is: how much is reaching those that need it? Our preferred approach to assessing monetary stimulus is to focus on the evolution of bank credit flows and bond yields over a six-month period. Bank Credit Flows Have Surged In The US And China, Not In Europe On our preferred assessment, Europe’s monetary stimulus is underwhelming compared with that in the US and China. The six-month increase in US bank credit flows, at $660 billion, is the highest in a decade and not far from the highest ever. In China, the equivalent six-month increase is $550 billion. But in the euro area, the six-month increase in bank credit flows amounts to an underwhelming $70 billion (Charts I-1 - Chart I-4). Chart I-3Bank Credit 6-Month Flow Up $550 Bn In China… Bank Credit 6-Month Flow Up $550 Bn In China... Bank Credit 6-Month Flow Up $550 Bn In China... Chart I-4...And Up ##br##Globally ...And Up Globally ...And Up Globally Admittedly, US firms are drawing on pre-arranged bank credit lines rather than taking out new loans. Furthermore, the link between bank credit flows and final demand might be compromised during the current economic shutdown. For example, if firms are borrowing to pay workers who are not producing any output, then the transmission of a credit flow acceleration to a GDP acceleration would be weakened. Europe’s monetary stimulus is underwhelming compared with that in the US and China. Nevertheless, some bank credit flows will still reach the real economy. And the US and China are creating more bank credit flows than Europe. Focus On The Deceleration Of The Bond Yield Turning to the bond yield, it is important to focus not on its level, and not on its decline. Instead, it is important to focus on its deceleration. The focus on the deceleration of the bond yield sounds counterintuitive, but it results from a fundamental accounting identity. The next two paragraphs may seem somewhat technical but read them carefully, as they are important for understanding the transmission of stimulus. GDP is a flow. It measures the flow of goods and services produced in a quarter. Hence, GDP receives a contribution from the flow of credit. The flow of credit, in turn, is established by the level of bond yields. When we talk about stimulating the economy, we mean boosting the GDP growth rate from, say, -1 percent to +1 percent, which is an acceleration of GDP. This acceleration in the GDP flow must come from an acceleration in the flow of credit. This acceleration in the flow of credit, in turn, must come from a deceleration of bond yields. In other words, the bond yield decline in the most recent period must be greater than the decline in the previous period. Banks tend to perform better after bond yields have decelerated. The good news is that in the US and China, bond yields have decelerated; the bad news is that in Europe, they have not. Over the past six months, the 10-year bond yield has decelerated by 40 bps in the US and by 65 bps in China. Yet in France, despite the coronavirus crisis, the 10-year bond yield has accelerated by 60 bps (Charts I-5 - Chart I-8).1 Chart I-5The Bond Yield Has Accelerated ##br##In The Euro Area... The Bond Yield Has Accelerated In The Euro Area... CHART B The Bond Yield Has Accelerated In The Euro Area... CHART B Chart I-6...Decelerated ##br##In The US... ...Decelerated In The US... ...Decelerated In The US... Chart I-7...Decelerated In China... ...Decelerated In China... ...Decelerated In China... Chart I-8...And Decelerated Globally ...And Decelerated Globally ...And Decelerated Globally European bond yields are struggling to decelerate because of their proximity to the lower bound to bond yields, at around -1 percent. The inability to decelerate the bond yield constrains the monetary stimulus that Europe can apply compared to the US and China, whose bond yields are much further from the lower bound constraint. Compared to Europe, the US and China have much stronger decelerations in their bond yields and much stronger accelerations in their bank credit flows. This suggests underweighting European domestic cyclicals versus their peers in the US and China. Specifically, banks tend to perform better after bond yields have decelerated; and they tend to perform worse after bond yields have accelerated. On this basis, underweight euro area banks versus US banks (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Banks Perform Better After Bond Yields Have Decelerated, Worse After Bond Yields Have Accelerated Banks Perform Better After Bond Yields Have Decelerated, Worse After Bond Yields Have Accelerated Banks Perform Better After Bond Yields Have Decelerated, Worse After Bond Yields Have Accelerated Long-Term Asset Allocation Is Straightforward, Shorter-Term Is Not The level of the bond yield, or of so-called ‘financial conditions’, does not drive the short-term oscillations in credit flows. To repeat, it is the acceleration and deceleration of the bond yield that matters. Yet when it comes to the long-term valuation of assets, the level of the bond yield does matter, and when the bond yield is ultra-low it matters enormously. An ultra-low bond yield justifies a much lower prospective return on competing long-duration assets, like equities. The reason is that when bond yields approach their lower bound, bond prices can no longer rise, they can only fall. This higher riskiness of bonds justifies an abnormally low (or zero) ‘risk premium’ on equities. In this world of ultra-low numbers – for both bond yields and equity risk premiums – the low to mid-single digit long-term return that equities are offering makes them attractive versus bonds (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Equities Are Offering Mid-Single Digit Long-Term Returns Equities Are Offering Mid-Single Digit Long-Term Returns Equities Are Offering Mid-Single Digit Long-Term Returns But this long-term valuation argument only works for those with long-term investment horizons. What does long-term mean? There is no clear dividing line, but we would define long-term as two years at the very minimum. For a one-year investment horizon, the much more important question is: what will happen to 12-month forward earnings (profits)?  In the stock market recessions of 2008-09 and 2015-16, the stock market reached its low just before forward earnings reached their low. Assuming the same holds true in 2020-21, we must establish whether forward earnings are close to their low or not. In 2008-09, world forward earnings collapsed by 45 percent. In the current recession, which is putatively worse, world forward earnings are down by less than 20 percent to date. To have already reached the cycle low in forward earnings with only half the decline of 2008, the current recession needs to be much shorter than the 2008-09 episode (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11In The Global Financial Crisis, Forward Earnings Collapsed By 45 Percent In The Global Financial Crisis, Forward Earnings Collapsed By 45 Percent In The Global Financial Crisis, Forward Earnings Collapsed By 45 Percent Chart I-12In The Current Crisis, Forward Earnings Are Down 20 Percent. Is That Enough? In The Current Crisis, Forward Earnings Are Down 20 Percent. Is That Enough? In The Current Crisis, Forward Earnings Are Down 20 Percent. Is That Enough? Whether this turns out to be the case or not hinges on the pandemic and our response to it. A controlled easing of lockdowns will boost growth as more of the economy comes back to life. But too rapid an easing of lockdowns will unleash a second wave of the pandemic, requiring a second wave of economic shutdowns, a double dip recession and a new low in the stock market. Hence, if you have a long-term (2-year plus) investment horizon, the choice between equities and bonds is very straightforward: overweight equities. On this long-term horizon, German and Swedish equities are especially attractive versus negative-yielding bonds. On a 1-year investment horizon, the key question is: can we avoid a second wave of the pandemic? But if you have a 1-year investment horizon, the choice is less straightforward, because it hinges on whether we can avoid a second wave of the pandemic or not. Until it becomes clear that governments will not reopen economies too quickly, remain neutral equities on the 1-year horizon. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is a pair-trade within the cryptocurrency asset-class. Long bitcoin cash / short ethereum. Set the profit target at 21 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. The 12-month rolling win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-13Bitcoin Cash Vs. Ethereum Bitcoin Cash Vs. Ethereum Bitcoin Cash Vs. Ethereum When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In the US, the 10-year bond yield has declined by 120 bps in the past six months compared with 80 bps in the preceding six months, which equals a deceleration of 40 bps; in China, the 10-year bond yield has declined by 73 bps in the past six months compared with 18 bps in the preceding six months, which equals a deceleration of 65 bps; but in France, the 10-year bond yield has increased by 12 bps in the past six months compared with a 48 bps decline in the preceding six months, which equals an acceleration of 60 bps. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Inflation-Linked Bonds: The plunging price of oil has put renewed downward pressure on global bond yields via lower inflation expectations. With oil prices set to recover over the next 6-12 months as the global economy awakens from the COVID-19 slumber, depressed market-derived inflation expectations can move higher across the developed markets – most notably in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Favor inflation-linked government bonds versus nominals in those countries on a strategic (6-12 months) basis. UK Corporates: The Bank of England (BoE) is supporting the UK investment grade corporate bond market with an unprecedented level and pace of purchases, with credit spreads at attractive levels. Upgrade UK investment grade corporates to overweight on a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Across sectors, favor debt from sectors such as non-bank Financials and Communications that are less exposed to pandemic-related uncertainty but still benefit from BoE buying. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Link Between Oil & Bond Yields Remains Strong The Link Between Oil & Bond Yields Remains Strong The Link Between Oil & Bond Yields Remains Strong The shocking, albeit brief, journey of the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil price benchmark below zero last week was another in a long line of stunning market moves seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those negative oil prices were technical in nature and lasted all of one day, but the ramifications for global bond markets of the falling cost of oil in 2020 have been more enduring. Government bond yields have largely followed the ebbs and flows in energy markets for most of the past decade, and this year has been no exception (Chart of the Week). That link from oil has been through the inflation expectations component of yields, which have been (and remain) highly correlated to oil prices in virtually every developed market country. This is likely due to the persistent low global inflation backdrop since the 2008 financial crisis, which has made cyclical swings in energy prices the marginal driver of both realized and expected inflation. Chart 2BCA's Commodity Strategists Expect Oil Prices To Recover BCA's Commodity Strategists Expect Oil Prices To Recover BCA's Commodity Strategists Expect Oil Prices To Recover Our colleagues at BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy now anticipate higher oil prices over the next 12-18 months.1 Global growth is expected to recover from the COVID-19 recession sooner (and faster) than global oil production, helping to improve the demand/supply balance in energy markets and boost oil prices (Chart 2). Our energy strategists expect the benchmark Brent oil price to rise to $42/bbl by the end of 2020 and $78/bbl by the end of 2021. Those are big moves compared to the current spot price around $20/bbl, and would impart significant upward pressure on inflation expectations if the history of the past decade is any guide. That kind of move in oil prices should also help lift overall nominal government bond yields. Although the real (inflation-adjusted) component of yields is likely to remain low as major central banks like the Fed and ECB will remain highly accommodative, even when growth and inflation begin to recover, given the severity of the COVID-19 global recession. With market-based inflation expectations now at such beaten-up levels, and with the disinflationary effect of falling energy prices set to fade, we see an opportunity to play for a cyclical rebound in inflation breakevens across the developed markets by favoring inflation-linked government bonds versus nominal yielding equivalents. A Simple Framework For Finding Value In Inflation Breakevens Given the remarkably tight correlation between oil prices and market-determined inflation expectations in so many countries, it should be fairly straightforward to model the latter using the former as the main input. We have developed a series of fair value regressions for breakevens in the major developed countries which do exactly that. In this simple approach, we attempt to model the 10-year breakeven from inflation-linked bonds for eight countries – the US, the UK, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Canada and Australia - as a function of a short-run variable (oil prices) and a long-run variable (the trend in realized inflation). Specifically, we are using the annual percentage change in the Brent oil price benchmark in local currency terms (i.e. converted from US dollars at spot exchange rates) as the short-run variable and a five-year moving average of realized headline CPI inflation as the long-run variable. The latter is included to provide an “anchor” for breakevens based on the actual performance of inflation in each country. In other words, expectations about what inflation will look like in the future are informed by what it has done in the past – what economists refer to as “adaptive” expectations. The generic regression equation used for each country is: 10-year inflation breakeven = α + β1 * (annual % change of Brent oil price in local currency terms) + β2 * (60-month moving average of headline CPI inflation) In Table 1, we present the results of the regressions of each of the eight countries, which use weekly data dating back to the start of 2012 to capture the period when oil prices have most heavily influenced inflation expectations. The coefficients, R-squareds and standard errors of the regressions are all shown, as well as the most recent model residual (i.e. the deviation of 10-year inflation expectations from model-determined fair value). All the coefficients for each model are significant. The R-squareds of the models vary, with the models for France and Australia doing the best job of explaining changes in inflation expectations in those two countries. Table 1Details Of Our New 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Models Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low For the UK and Japan, we added an additional “dummy” variable to control for the unique situations that we believe have influenced inflation breakevens in those countries. For the UK, the period since the June 2016 Brexit vote has seen the path of inflation expectations stay nearly 50bps higher than implied by moves in GBP-denominated oil prices and the trend in actual UK inflation. For Japan, the period since the Bank of Japan initiated its Yield Curve Control policy in September 2016 has seen breakevens stay nearly 60bps below fair value as derived from JPY-denominated oil prices and the trend in actual Japanese inflation. Bond investors with longer-term investment horizons looking to play for a global growth recovery from the COVID-19 recession over the next 12-18 months should position for some widening of breakevens by favoring inflation-linked bonds over nominal paying government debt. In Charts 3 to10 over the next four pages, we show the models for each country. 10-year inflation breakevens versus the independent variables in the models are shown in the top two panels, the model fair value is presented in the 3rd panel, and the deviation from fair value is in the bottom panel. In all cases, breakevens are below fair value, suggesting that inflation-linked bonds look relatively attractive versus nominal government bonds. Chart 3Our US 10-Year TIPS Breakevens Model Our US 10-Year TIPS Breakevens Model Our US 10-Year TIPS Breakevens Model Chart 4Our UK 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our UK 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our UK 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 5Our France 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our France 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our France 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 6Our Italy 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Italy 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Italy 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 7Our Japan 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Japan 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Japan 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 8Our Germany 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Germany 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Germany 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 9Our Canada 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Canada 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Canada 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 10Our Australia 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Australia 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Our Australia 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 11Real Inflation-Linked Bond Yields Will Remain Subdued For Longer Real Inflation-Linked Bond Yields Will Remain Subdued For Longer Real Inflation-Linked Bond Yields Will Remain Subdued For Longer The largest deviations from fair value can be found in Canada (-70bps), Australia (-48bps), the UK (-29bps), and the US (-26bps). 10-year breakevens are also below fair value in the euro zone countries and Japan, but not by more than one standard deviation as is the case for the other four countries. Bond investors with longer-term investment horizons looking to play for a global growth recovery from the COVID-19 recession over the next 12-18 months should position for some widening of breakevens by favoring inflation-linked bonds over nominal paying government debt. Focus on the four markets with breakevens furthest from fair value, although from a market liquidity perspective it is easier to implement those positions in the US and UK, which represent a combined 69% of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Inflation-Linked bond index. A rise in inflation expectations should also, eventually, put some sustained upward pressure on nominal bond yields. We would rather play that initially by positioning for higher inflation breakevens, rather than having outright below-benchmark duration exposure, as developed market central banks will stay accommodative for longer given the severity of the COVID-19 recession - that will keep real bond yields lower for longer (Chart 11). Breakevens from inflation-linked bonds are now too low across the developed markets – most notably in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Bottom Line: The plunging price of oil has put renewed downward pressure on global bond yields via lower inflation expectations. With oil prices set to recover over the next 6-12 months as the global economy starts to awaken from the coronavirus induced slumber, breakevens from inflation-linked bonds are now too low across the developed markets – most notably in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Favor linkers over nominals in those countries. Where Is The Value In UK Corporate Bonds? Chart 12Upgrade UK IG Corporates To Overweight On BoE Buying Upgrade UK IG Corporates To Overweight On BoE Buying Upgrade UK IG Corporates To Overweight On BoE Buying The Bank of England (BoE) initiated its Corporate Bond Purchase Scheme (CBPS) in August 2016 as part of a package of stimulus measures to cushion the economic blow from the UK’s vote to exit the European Union. As we noted in recent joint report with our sister service, BCA Research US Bond Strategy,2 the CBPS helped tighten spreads by lowering downgrade and default risk premiums and also helped spur corporate bond issuance (Chart 12). Shortly after that report was published, the BoE announced that it would be purchasing a further £10 billion in investment grade nonfinancial corporate bonds in the coming months, doubling the scheme’s aggregate holdings to £20 billion. In addition, the bank would make these purchases at a significantly faster pace than in 2016, which implies a faster transmission towards tightening of spreads. Compared to other central bank peers, however, the BoE’s program still has room to expand, which makes UK investment grade credit attractive over tactical and strategic investment horizons. Using the market value of the Bloomberg Barclays UK corporate bond index (excluding financials) as a proxy for the total value of eligible bonds, the CBPS is on track to own roughly 9% of all eligible bonds by the time the £20 billion target is reached. The neighboring European Central Bank, on the other hand, already owns 23% of the stock of eligible euro area corporate bonds in its market, and that figure is only set to increase with policymakers set to do “whatever it takes” to backstop the investment grade market. Year-to-date, UK corporate bonds appear to have recovered somewhat from the panicked selloff earlier this quarter (Table 2), with the Bloomberg Barclays UK investment grade corporate bond index down only -0.3% in total return terms. In excess return terms relative to duration-matched UK corporate bonds, however, the index is down -5.2%, indicating that weakness has persisted in the pure credit component. Table 2UK Investment Grade Corporate Bond Returns Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low At the broad sector level, Other Industrials appear to be the outlier, having delivered positive excess returns (+0.6%) and significant total returns (+16%). These returns are not nearly as attractive, however, on a risk-adjusted basis once you consider that this sector has an index duration more than three times that of the overall index.3 Outside of that sector, the best performers, in excess return terms, are predominantly the more “defensive” sectors—Utilities (-3.4%), Technology (-3.7%), Communications (-4.2%) and Consumer Non-Cyclical (-4.6%). Meanwhile, the sectors most exposed to vanishing consumer demand and weak global growth have performed the worst—Transportation (-9.5%), Capital Goods (-7%), Energy (-6.8%), and Basic Industry (-6.2%). Credit spreads in the UK indicate that the market has already begun to stabilize in response to the BoE’s new round of corporate bond purchases. Credit spreads in the UK indicate that the market has already begun to stabilize in response to the BoE’s new round of corporate bond purchases (Chart 13). The overall index spread, although still elevated at 228bps, has already tightened by 57bps from the peak in late March. The gap between the index spreads of Baa-rated and Aa-rated UK debt remained relatively stable through the wave of sell-offs, peaking at +53bps, below the 2019 high of +55bps, and settling now to +36bps. Outside the purview of the CBPS, however, the situation is a bit rockier, with the overall high-yield index spread +590bps above that of the investment grade index. Broadly speaking, there is a clear disparity between those credit tiers that have the support of the monetary authorities and those that do not. Investment grade spreads will continue to tighten as the BoE rapidly increases its holdings of investment grade corporate bonds. However, high-yield bonds remain exposed to downgrade/default risk and ongoing uncertainty stemming from the COVID-19 economic shock. To drill down into which credit tier spreads offer the most value within the UK investment grade space, we use the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings. 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. Chart 14 shows the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings for all the credit tiers in the UK investment grade space. Aaa-rated debt appears most unattractive, with the spreads currently ranking below the historical median. Between the other three tiers, Aa-rated debt offers the most value, although all three are at historically attractive levels. Chart 13UK IG Has Held Up Well During The COVID-19 Shock UK IG Has Held Up Well During The COVID-19 Shock UK IG Has Held Up Well During The COVID-19 Shock Chart 14UK IG Breakeven Spreads Look Most Attractive For Aa-Rated Bonds UK IG Breakeven Spreads Look Most Attractive For Aa-Rated Bonds UK IG Breakeven Spreads Look Most Attractive For Aa-Rated Bonds On the sector-level, the disparity in spreads is most clearly visible in the sectors most exposed to the pandemic. In Charts 15 & 16, we show the history of option-adjusted spreads (OAS) for the major industrial sub-groupings of the Bloomberg Barclays UK investment grade corporate index. Spreads look widest relative to history for sectors such as Energy and Transportation, while spread widening has been contained in more insulated sectors such as Financials. Chart 15A Mixed Performance For UK IG By Sector In 2020 … A Mixed Performance For UK IG By Sector In 2020 ... A Mixed Performance For UK IG By Sector In 2020 ... Chart 16… But Spreads, In General, Remain Below Previous Cyclical Peaks ... But Spreads, In General, Remain Below Previous Cyclical Peaks ... But Spreads, In General, Remain Below Previous Cyclical Peaks Another way to assess value across UK investment grade corporates is our sector relative value framework. Borrowing from the methodology used for US corporate credit by our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy, the sector relative value framework determines “fair value” spreads for each of the major and minor industry level sub-indices of the overall UK investment grade universe. The methodology takes each sector's individual OAS and regresses it in a cross-sectional regression with all other sectors. The dependent variables in the model are each sector's duration, 12-month trailing 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. We see this as an opportune time to upgrade our recommended allocation for UK investment grade corporates to overweight. The latest output from the UK relative value spread model can be found in Table 3. 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 17 shows the tradeoff between the valuation residual from our model and each sector's DTS. Table 3UK Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Chart 17UK Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Valuation Versus Risk Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low 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. Amid a backdrop of global uncertainty, we reiterate one of our major themes this quarter—buy what the central banks are buying. Given that UK corporate spreads are attractive on a breakeven basis, and with the BoE purchasing corporate debt at an even faster pace than during the volatile period following the shock Brexit vote in 2016, we see this as an opportune time to upgrade our recommended allocation for UK investment grade corporates to overweight. This is both on a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic basis (6-12 months). In our model bond portfolio, we have added two percentage points to our recommended UK corporate bond allocation, funded by reducing further our existing underweight on Japanese government bonds. At the sector level, given this positive backdrop for credit performance, we do not see a need to favor lower risk sectors with a DTS score below that of the overall UK investment grade index. On that basis, we are looking to go overweight sectors with higher 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 17. Based on the latest output from the relative value model, the strongest overweight candidates are the following UK investment grade sectors: selected Financials (Insurance, Subordinated Bank Debt, and Other Financials), Media Entertainment, Cable Satellite, Tobacco, Diversified Manufacturing, and Communications. The least attractive sectors within this framework are: Packaging, Lodging, REITs, Other Industrials, Metals, Natural Gas, Restaurants, Transportation Services, Financial Institutions, and Midstream Energy. Bottom Line: The BoE is supporting the UK investment grade corporate bond market with an unprecedented level and pace of purchases. Spreads have already begun to tighten in response but are still at attractive levels. Upgrade UK investment grade corporates to overweight on a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Across credit tiers, favor Aa-rated debt. Across sectors, favor debt from sectors such as non-bank Financials and Communications that are less exposed to pandemic-related uncertainty but still benefit from the CBPS.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate shaktis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "US Storage Tightens, Pushing WTI Lower", dated April 16, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis", dated March 31 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Other Industrials has an index duration of 28.6 years, compared to 8.5 years for the overall UK investment grade corporate bond index. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Portfolio Strategy We remain comfortable with a 3,000 SPX fair value estimate backed up by our DDM, forward ERP and sensitivity analyses. The path of least resistance remains higher for the SPX on a 9-12 month cyclical time horizon. The oil price collapse is eliciting a massive supply response that should help rebalance the oil markets, and coupled with glimmers of hope on reopening the economy, it should put a floor under oil prices. CB are injecting unprecedented amounts of liquidity in the markets and at some point this will lead to a growth revival which is negative for gold prices. Taken together, and given all-time lows in relative valuations and technicals, we are compelled to go long US oil & gas exploration & production stocks at the expense of global gold miners. We are putting the S&P managed health care index on downgrade alert to reflect the risk that rising unemployment poses to health care enrollment. Falling interest rates also weigh on industry profitability at a time when relative valuations are perky and technicals are overbought. Recent Changes Initiate a long S&P oil & gas exploration & production/short global gold miners pair trade, today. Table 1 Gauging Fair Value Gauging Fair Value Feature Equities marked time last week, despite the passage of a fresh mini fiscal 2.0 package and efforts to restart the economy in parts of the globe. In contrast, news that President Trump may delay reopening the economy along with negative crude oil prices weighed heavily on the S&P 500. Nevertheless, energy equities fared very well, defying the oil market carnage and impressively relative energy share prices have led the SPX trough (Chart 1). We remain constructive on the broad equity market on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. Following up from last week’s SPX dividend discount model (DDM) update, we complement our research with two additional ways of approximating the SPX fair value: EPS and multiple sensitivity analysis and a forward equity risk premium (ERP) analysis. While at the nadir the stock market priced in a collapse in EPS close to $104 for the current year (please refer to our analysis here1), in 2021 EPS can return to their long-term trend line near $162. At first sight this spike in EPS seems unrealistic. However, here are two salient points: Chart 1Energy As A Leading Indicator Energy As A Leading Indicator Energy As A Leading Indicator First, hard-hit COVID-19 subsectors are a small fraction of SPX profits and market capitalization. In other words, the S&P 500 is a market cap weighted index and has already filtered out hotels, cruises, restaurants, homebuilders, autos, auto parts, airlines, and even energy as they comprise a small part of the SPX. Second, historical precedents show an explosive year-over-year growth increase in EPS from recessionary troughs. In fact, the steeper the collapse the more violent the rebound. Hence, our recovery EPS estimate is more or less in line with empirical evidence (Chart 2). Chart 2Violently Oscillating EPS Violently Oscillating EPS Violently Oscillating EPS For comparison purposes, the Street is still penciling in EPS near $135 and $170 for 2020 and 2021, respectively. Table 2 shows our sensitivity analysis and an SPX ending value of just above 2,900 using $162 EPS and an 18x forward multiple as our base case. This multiple is slightly below the historical time trend using IBES data dating back to 1979, and represents our fair value PE estimate (please see page 17 of our April 6, 2020 webcast2 available here). Table 2SPX EPS & Multiple Sensitivity Gauging Fair Value Gauging Fair Value With regard to the forward ERP analysis, our starting point is an equilibrium ERP of 440 basis points (bps). The way we derived this number was using the last decade’s average observed forward ERP (middle panel, Chart 3). We used to think equilibrium ERP was closer to 200bps. However, if the Fed’s extraordinary – and unorthodox – measures since the onset of the GFC did not manage to bring down the ERP (middle panel, Chart 3), then in the current recession with uncertainty on the rise, it only makes sense to model a higher than previously thought equilibrium ERP (middle panel, Chart 4). Chart 3The Forward Equity Risk Premium… The Forward Equity Risk Premium… The Forward Equity Risk Premium… Chart 4…Will Recede …Will Recede …Will Recede And, just to put the forward ERP in perspective, keep in mind that it jumped from 350bps to just below 600bps year-to-date (Chart 4)! A doubling in the 10-year US treasury yield to 120bps is another assumption we are making along with using our trend EPS estimate of $162 for calendar 2021. Backing out price results in a roughly 2,900 SPX fair value estimate (Table 3). Table 3Forward Equity Risk Premium Analysis Gauging Fair Value Gauging Fair Value We remain comfortable with a 3,000 SPX fair value estimate backed up by our DDM, forward ERP and sensitivity analyses. Despite the much needed current consolidation phase, the path of least resistance is higher for the SPX on a 9-12 month cyclical time horizon. This week we are putting a health care subgroup on downgrade alert and initiating a high-octane intra-commodity market-neutral pair trade to benefit from the looming handoff of liquidity to growth. Time To Buy “Black Gold” At The Expense Of Gold Bullion We have been long and wrong on the S&P energy sector and its subcomponents, as neither we nor our Commodity & Energy Strategists anticipated -$40/bbl WTI crude oil futures prices. Nevertheless, as the energy sector is drifting into oblivion within the SPX – it is now the second smallest GICS1 sector with a 2.77% market cap weight slightly higher than materials – we think that WTI May contract reaching -$40/bbl marked the recessionary trough. Similar to the early-2018 “volmageddon” incident when a volatility exchanged trade product blew up and got dismantled and marked that cyclical peak in the VIX, the recent near collapse of USO and shuttering of another oil related levered exchange traded product serve as the anecdotes that likely mark the low in oil prices. True, negative WTI futures prices are no longer taboo and the CME prepared for them by reprograming its systems to handle negative futures prices, thus they can happen again. With regard to the significance of anecdotes in market tops and bottoms, another interesting one that comes to mind is from our early days at BCA in May of 2008 where we worked for the Global Investment Strategy team as a senior analyst. Back then, we vividly remember a Goldman Sachs analyst slapping a $150/bbl target on crude oil,3 and only days later in unprecedented hubris Gazprom’s CEO upped the ante with an apocalyptic $250/bbl prediction.4 This prompted us to create our first mania chart at BCA with crude oil prices on June 20, 2008 (please see chart 16 from that report available here5), which proved timely as oil prices peaked less than a month later at $147/bbl. Today, we are compelled to perform the opposite exercise and run a regression of previous equity sector market crashes on the S&P oil & gas exploration & production index (E&P, that most closely resembles WTI crude oil prices) in order to gauge a recovery profile. Chart 5 suggests that if the anecdotes are accurate in calling the trough in oil prices, then E&P stocks should enjoy a steep price appreciation trajectory in the coming two years. Beyond the overweights we continue to hold in the S&P energy sector and all the subgroups we cover, we believe that there is an exploitable trading opportunity to go long S&P E&P/short global gold miners (Chart 6). Chart 5Heed The US Equity Strategy’s Crash Index Message Heed The US Equity Strategy’s Crash Index Message Heed The US Equity Strategy’s Crash Index Message This high-octane trade is extremely volatile, but the recent carnage in the oil markets offers a great entry point for investors that can stomach heightened volatility, with an enticing risk/reward tradeoff. The gold/oil ratio (GOR) is trading at 112 as we went to press and we think that it will have to settle down. The Fed is doing its utmost to dampen volatility, and historically, suppressed volatility has been synonymous with a falling GOR (Chart 7). As a result, our pair trade will have to at least climb back to its recent breakdown point, representing a near 34% return (top panel, Chart 6). Chart 6Buy E&P Stocks At The Expense Of Gold Miners Buy E&P Stocks At The Expense Of Gold Miners Buy E&P Stocks At The Expense Of Gold Miners From a macro perspective the time to buy oil equities at the expense of gold miners is when there is a handoff from liquidity to growth (bottom panel, Chart 6). While we are still in the liquidity injection phase we deem the Fed and other Central Banks (CB) are committed to do “whatever it takes” to sustain the proper functioning of the markets. Therefore, at some point likely in the back half of the year when the economy slowly reopens, all these CB programs will bear fruit and growth will recover violently (middle panel, Chart 6), especially given our long-held view that the US will avoid a Great Depression. Chart 7VIX Says Sell The GOR VIX Says Sell The GOR VIX Says Sell The GOR With regard to balancing the oil market, nothing like price to change behavior. In more detail, the recent collapse in oil prices will work like magic to bring some semblance of normality back to the crude oil market, as it will naturally cause a shut in of production; there is no doubt about it. Not only has the supply response commenced, but it is also accelerating to the downside as the plunging rig count depicts (Chart 8). This will lead to some longer-term bullish oil price ramifications. As a reminder, while demand drives prices in the short-term, supply dictates the oil price direction in the long-term. Chart 8Oil Price Collapse Induced Supply Response Oil Price Collapse Induced Supply Response Oil Price Collapse Induced Supply Response Turning over to gold and gold miners, all this liquidity is forcing investors to chase bullion and related equities higher. Tack on that every CB the world over is trying to debase their currency, and factors are falling into place for sustainable flows into gold and gold mining equities. However, there are high odds that all this money sloshing around will eventually generate growth especially in the western hemisphere that is slowly contemplating of restarting its economic engines. As a result, real yields will rise which in turn is negative for gold and gold miners (Chart 9). Finally, relative valuations and technicals could not be more depressed, which is contrarily positive (Chart 10). Chart 9Liquidity To Growth Handoff Beneficiary Liquidity To Growth Handoff Beneficiary Liquidity To Growth Handoff Beneficiary Netting it all out, the oil price collapse is eliciting a massive supply response that should help rebalance the oil markets, and coupled with glimmers of hope on reopening the economy, it should put a floor under oil prices. CB are injecting unprecedented amounts of liquidity in the markets and at some point this will lead to a growth revival which is negative for gold prices. Taken together, and given all-time lows in relative valuations and technicals, we are compelled to go long US oil & gas exploration & production equities at the expense of global gold miners. Chart 10As Bad As It Gets As Bad As It Gets As Bad As It Gets Bottom Line: Initiate a long US oil & gas exploration & production/short global gold miners pair trade today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: BLBG: S5OILP – COP, EOG, HES, COG, MRO, NBL, CXO, APA, PXD, DVN, FANG, (or XOP:US exchange traded fund) and GDX:US exchange traded fund, respectively. Put HMOs On Downgrade Alert We upgraded the S&P managed health care index last April, the Monday after Bernie Sanders re-introduced his “Medicare For All” bill.6 Our thesis was that the drubbing in this sector was a massive overreaction and we, along with our Geopolitical Strategists, thought that he would have low chances of clinching the Democratic Presidential candidacy and threatening to render HMOs obsolete. A year later, this thesis has panned out and the S&P managed care index is up 30% versus the S&P 500. Nevertheless we do not want to overstay our welcome and are putting it on our downgrade watch list and instituting a 5% rolling stop in order to protect gains in our portfolio (top panel, Chart 11). Relative share prices have broken out to fresh all-time highs, not only courtesy of a more moderate Democratic Presidential candidate, but also because a significant boost to margins and profits is looming. The delayed effect of fewer elective procedures (i.e. hip and knee replacements and even non-life threatening bypass surgeries) owing to the coronavirus pandemic will result in a sizable, yet temporary, margin expansion phase (second panel, Chart 11). Tack on, still roughly 20% health care insurance CPI and the outlook for HMO margins and profits further improves (bottom panel, Chart 11). Nevertheless, there are some negative offsets. Over the past 5 weeks unemployment insurance claims have soared to 26.5mn, erasing all the employment gains of the past decade, thus private insurance enrollment will take a sizable hit (top panel, Chart 12). Chart 11The Good… The Good… The Good… Chart 12…And The Bad …And The Bad …And The Bad Moreover on the income side, the premia that HMOs take in are typically invested in the risk free asset and given the two month fall from 1.5% to around 0.6% in the 10-year Treasury yield, managed health care earnings will also, at the margin, suffer a setback (bottom panel, Chart 12). True, the HMOs earnings juggernaut has been one of a kind over the past decade underpinning relative share prices (top panel, Chart 13). However, we reckon a lot of the good news and very little if any of the bad news is priced in extremely optimistic relative profit expectation going out five years (middle panel, Chart 13). Keep in mind that the bulk of the M&A activity is behind this industry as the dust has now settled from the previous two year frenzied pace of inter and intra industry combinations (top panel, Chart 14). Chart 13Lots Of Good News Is Already Priced In Lots Of Good News Is Already Priced In Lots Of Good News Is Already Priced In Chart 14Preparing Not To Overstay Our Welcome Preparing Not To Overstay Our Welcome Preparing Not To Overstay Our Welcome Finally, relative technicals are in overbought territory close to one standard deviation above the historical mean and relative valuations are also becoming a tad too lofty for our liking (middle & bottom panel, Chart 14). Adding it all up, we are putting the S&P managed health care index on downgrade alert to reflect the risk that rising unemployment poses to health care enrollment. Falling interest rates also weigh on industry profitability at a time when relative valuations are perky and technicals are overbought. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P managed health care index, but it is now on our downgrade watch list. We are also instituting a rolling 5% stop as a portfolio management tool in order to protect profits. Stay tuned. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH-UNH, ANTM, HUM, CNC.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “What Is Priced In?” dated March 30, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2     https://www.icastpro.ca/events/bca/2020/04/06/us-equity-market-what-the-future-holds/play/16925 3    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/business/21oil.html 4    https://www.reuters.com/article/gazprom-ceo/russias-gazprom-sees-higher-gas-prices-ceo-idUSL1148506420080611 5    Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Strategy Outlook - PART 1 - Third Quarter 2008” dated June 20, 2008, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Show Me The Profits” dated April 15, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Gauging Fair Value Gauging Fair Value Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth May 10, 2018 Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%) June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).

Highlights A simple three-factor model has outperformed the DXY index since 1980. The main variables have been relative changes in interest rates, valuation and sentiment. The dominant factor varies from one currency to the next. The model recommends a barbell strategy over the next month – long SEK along with some safe havens. Commodity currencies remain a short. Feature Over the past few months, we have been trying to see if a rules-based approach in trading foreign exchange would have provided some sort of anchor amid the market chaos. In our February 7 report, we suggested that a currency investor could construct a long-term portfolio based on three criteria:1  A macroeconomic variable that captures the most important relative price between any two currencies: the real interest rate. A valuation measure that captures dislocation in a currency pair relative to its own history. A key assumption is stationarity, meaning the currency cross should mean-revert back to fair value over time. For this exercise, we use our adjusted purchasing power parity (PPP) models. More on this later. A sentiment indicator. We use a combination of the bullish consensus indicator published by martketvane.net and momentum measures that worked best. Other measures such as net speculative positioning from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) also provide relatively reliable results. This is a very simplistic approach, since foreign exchange markets discount a lot more macroeconomic information, and valuation measures span the spectrum of PPP, effective exchange rates, and behavioral and fundamental models. We intend to build upon the work laid out in this paper, but the goal is to see whether a simple trading rule has provided alpha for G10 currencies versus the US dollar. The good news is that it has. Since the 1980s, our three-factor model has outperformed the DXY index by 280%.  Since the 1980s, our three-factor model has outperformed the DXY index by 280% (Chart 1). There are three important considerations. First, the trading rules are generated monthly, which might be too frequent for hedging managers but make sense in the foreign exchange-trading world. This also made carry less important for excess returns. Second, the model has experienced some significant drawdowns. For example, the model started shorting the US dollar in 2014 (Chart 2) as it was making fresh highs. Since 2015, however, the DXY index has been broadly flat (EUR/USD is still above its 2015 lows). Otherwise, the USD has sold off massively against commodity FX and petrocurrencies. Finally, the model does now account for size in positioning. Chart 1Model Relative Return Model Relative Return Model Relative Return Chart 2DXY Trading Signal: > 0 = Buy; < 0 = Sell DXY Trading Signal: Greater Than Zero Equals Buy, Lower Than Zero Equals Sell DXY Trading Signal: Greater Than Zero Equals Buy, Lower Than Zero Equals Sell Part of the reason for the model’s volatility is its inherent design. The model is very aggressive in establishing long and short positions. This has paid off handsomely over time but can be quite painful in the short to medium term. In a nutshell, it provides a mechanical tool to anchor our ever-shifting fundamental biases towards currencies.  The Macro Factor Chart 3The Dollar And Interest Rates Diverge The Dollar And Interest Rates Diverge The Dollar And Interest Rates Diverge If a currency exchange rate is simply a measure of relative prices between two countries, then the most important price is the cost of money, or the interest rate. Over time, rising interest rates have usually been associated with an appreciating currency, and vice versa (Chart 3). Our trading rule for the macro model is as follows: First, only currencies with a positive real rate are eligible for long positions (negative real rate currencies are shorted). And second, this positive real rate should be rising relative to the US. We do not account for trading or hedging costs in this exercise, which are important considerations. The model has worked well most of the time, but less so for the commodity currencies and safe-haven currencies. The lack of terms-of-trade considerations is an important factor for commodity currencies. A buy-and-hold strategy for safe-haven currencies has also performed in line with the model, due to the significant upside safe-haven currencies command during market selloffs. A review of the results for each currency is available starting on page 7. The Value Factor Chart 4The USD Is Expensive According To PPP Introducing An FX Trading Model Introducing An FX Trading Model Valuation has proved to be a powerful catalyst for buying currencies over the longer term. In our previous work, we showed that value strategies in FX, especially based on PPP, needed an adjustment to be effective due to shortfalls in the measure.2 But once an adjustment was made, it was profitable to buy cheap currencies while selling expensive ones over the long term. While we look at a wide swath of currency valuation models, we only tested our adjusted PPP model for the purposes of this paper. Our in-house PPP models have undergone two crucial adjustments. In order to get closer to an “apples-to-apples” comparison across countries, we divide the consumer price index (CPI) baskets into five major groups: food, restaurants and hotels, shelter, health care, culture and recreation, and energy and transportation. We then take a weighted average combination of the five groups to form a synthetic relative price ratio. If, for example, shelter is 33% of the US CPI basket but 19% of the Swedish CPI basket, relative shelter prices will represent 26% of the combined price ratio. This allows for a uniform cross-sectional comparison, compared to using the national CPI weights. In most cases, this breakdown captures 90% of the national CPI basket. Buy currencies that are 5% or more cheaper than their PPP-implied fair value, and short currencies that are 5% or more overvalued.  The trading rule is simple. Buy currencies that are 5% or more cheaper than their PPP-implied fair value, and short currencies that are 5% or more overvalued. The outperformance versus a buy-and-hold strategy for the dollar was significant, but came with much volatility. The results also show that the cheapest currencies today are the Swedish krona and the Norwegian krone (Chart 4). The results for individual currencies are available on page 7. The Sentiment Factor We use a combination of the bullish consensus data published by martketvane.net and momentum measures for the sentiment component of the model. Speculative positioning tends to be our favorite contrarian indicator, but it has data limitations and is less effective as a monthly timing tool. The rules for the sentiment indicator encompass both the momentum and mean-reversion factor to exchange rates: If bullish sentiment (range is 0 – 100) is > 70, buy the currency. If it is < 30, sell the currency. If the one-month change in bullish sentiment is positive, buy. If it is negative, sell. If the 2-month return on a currency is > 10-month return, buy. If it is less, sell. The overarching theme from this exercise is that the US dollar is a momentum currency.3 Meanwhile, sentiment has proven to be quite agile in catching shifts in the FX market over the shorter term. We intend to explore this part of the paper in forthcoming iterations for more tactical trade ideas. Portfolio Calibration A composite model aggregates the signal from the three main factors. A buy signal is generated for values > =1 and a sell signal is generated for values < =1. The results are presented in Charts 5A and 5B. The model currently suggests a barbell strategy consisting off being long SEK, as well as the safe-haven currencies (CHF and JPY). The model is neutral on EUR, GBP, CAD, and NOK, while bearish on AUD and NZD. This fits with our near-term view that there could still be short-term upside to the US dollar, warranting holding a basket of the cheapest currencies as well as some safe havens. Chart 5ATrading Signal: >0 = Buy, <0 = Sell Trading Signal Higher Than Zero Equals Buy, Lower Than Zero Equals Sell Trading Signal Higher Than Zero Equals Buy, Lower Than Zero Equals Sell Chart 5BTrading Signal: >0 = Buy, <0 = Sell Trading Signal Higher Than Zero Equals Buy, Lower Than Zero Equals Sell Trading Signal Higher Than Zero Equals Buy, Lower Than Zero Equals Sell Kelly Zhong Research Analyst kellyz@bcaresearch.com   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Appendix Chart 6US Dollar Introducing An FX Trading Model Introducing An FX Trading Model Chart 7FX Model: The Euro FX Model: The Euro FX Model: The Euro Chart 8FX Model: British Pound FX Model: British Pound FX Model: British Pound Chart 9FX Model: Japanese Yen FX Model: Japanese Yen FX Model: Japanese Yen Chart 10FX Model: Australian Dollar FX Model: Australian Dollar FX Model: Australian Dollar Chart 11FX Model: New Zealand Dollar FX Model: New Zealand Dollar FX Model: New Zealand Dollar Chart 12FX Model: Canadian Dollar FX Model: Canadian Dollar FX Model: Canadian Dollar Chart 13FX Model: Swiss Franc FX Model: Swiss Franc FX Model: Swiss Franc Chart 14FX Model: Norwegian Krone FX Model: Norwegian Krone FX Model: Norwegian Krone Chart 15FX Model: Swedish Krona FX Model: Swedish Krona FX Model: Swedish Krona   Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Building A Protector Currency Portfolio”, dated February 7, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled “Value Strategies In FX Markets, Putting PPP To The Test”, dated May 11, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled, “Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets”, dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Highlights Q1/2020 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark by -40bps during the first quarter of the year – a number that would have been far worse if not for the changes in exposures for duration (increased) and spread product (decreased) made in early March. Winners & Losers: Underperformance was concentrated in sovereign debt, US Treasuries in particular (-94bps), as yields plummeted. This detracted from the outperformance in spread product (+51bps) led by US investment grade corporates (+34bps) and emerging markets (+20bps). Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: Given the ongoing uncertainty over when the COVID-19 pandemic and economy-crushing global lockdown will end, we are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure. Instead, we recommend focusing more on country allocation and spread product relative value to generate outperformance, favoring markets where there is direct involvement from central banks. Feature Global bond markets were roiled in the first quarter of 2020 by the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Government bond yields crashed to all-time lows while volatility reached extremes across both sovereign debt and credit. The quick, coordinated policy response from global monetary and fiscal authorities – which includes unprecedented levels of direct central bank asset purchases, both in terms of size and the breadth across markets and counties - has helped stabilize global credit spreads and risk assets, more generally. The outlook remains highly uncertain, however, with many governments worldwide looking to reopen their collapsed economies, risking the potential resurgence of a virus still lacking effective treatment or a vaccine. We are focusing more on relative value between counties and sectors. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the eventful first quarter of 2020. We also present our updated recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months. The main takeaway there is that we are focusing more on relative value between counties and sectors while staying close to benchmark on both overall global duration and spread product exposure versus government bonds (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil Chart 1Q1/2020 Performance: Lagging, But It Could Have Been Much Worse Q1/2020 Performance: Lagging, But It Could Have Been Much Worse Q1/2020 Performance: Lagging, But It Could Have Been Much Worse As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2020 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: A Missed Rally In Sovereigns, Outperformance In Credit The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the first quarter was -0.1%, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -40bps (Chart 1).1 That relative underperformance came from the government bond side of the portfolio, while our spread product allocation outperformed the benchmark. US Treasuries underperformed the most (-91bps) with losses concentrated in the +10 year maturity bucket. (Table 2). After US Treasuries, euro area high-yield corporates were the second worst performer, underperforming the benchmark by -10bps. Outperformance in spread product was driven by US investment grade industrials (+22bps) and EM credit (+20bps). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Overall Return Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil The potential losses to our model portfolio were greatly mitigated by changes in positioning during the quarter. Our decision to raise overall global duration exposure to neutral at the beginning of March helped shield the portfolio as yields plummeted.2 We followed this by upgrading sovereign debt in the US and Canada, both higher-beta countries, to overweight while moving to an underweight stance on US high-yield debt, euro area investment-grade and high-yield debt, and emerging market (EM) USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt.3 In an environment of rampant uncertainty, these allocation changes helped prevent catastrophic losses in the model portfolio that had previously been positioned for a pickup in global growth. The potential losses to our model portfolio were greatly mitigated by changes in positioning during the quarter. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -91bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +51bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil The most significant movers were: Biggest Outperformers Overweight US investment grade industrials (+22bps) Underweight euro area investment grade corporate bonds (+16bps) Underweight EM USD-denominated corporates (+12bps) Overweight US investment grade financials (+10bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (+8bps) Biggest Underperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (-36bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 3-5 years (-17bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-16bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 1-3 years (-13bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-12bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2020. The returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1/2020 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral).4 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Predictably, government debt performed the best in Q1/2020 as global bond yields fell and monetary authorities raced to support economies and inject liquidity. UK, US, and Canadian government debt delivered the best returns this quarter. While we started the year neutral or underweight those assets, we moved to an overweight allocation in March, which helped salvage some returns. Also worth noting is that Australian government debt, where we have maintained a structural overweight stance, was one of the top performing markets during the first quarter. The deepest losses were sustained in EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt, and euro area high-yield. Although it seems a distant memory at this point, we did start this quarter on an optimistic note and expected spreads on these products to narrow as global growth picked up. However, we were able to shield our portfolio against excessive losses in these products by moving to an underweight stance in March once the severity of the COVID-19 global economic shock become apparent. Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index during the first quarter of the year. The underperformance was concentrated in government bonds, which rallied on the back of the global pandemic. However, the portfolio outperformed the benchmark in spread products, where the combination of massive fiscal/monetary easing and direct central bank asset purchases have brought credit spreads under control. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Typically, in these quarterly performance reviews of our model bond portfolio, we attempt to make return forecasts for the portfolio based off scenario analysis and quantitative predictions of various fixed income asset classes. In the current unprecedented economic and financial market environment, however, we are reluctant to rely on model coefficients and correlations to estimate expected returns. Instead, in this report, we will focus on discussing the logic behind our current model portfolio positioning and how those allocations should expect to contribute to the overall portfolio performance over the next six months. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: Our recommended overweight stance on US spread product that is backstopped by the Fed—US investment grade corporates, Agency CMBS, and Ba-rated high-yield; Our recommended overweight stance on relatively higher-yielding sovereigns like the US and Italy; Our recommended underweight stance on EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns, where the specter of defaults and liquidity crunches looms. In terms of specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we have moderated our stance on global spread product since our previous review of the portfolio.5 While the monetary liquidity backdrop is highly bullish, with central banks aggressively buying bonds and keeping policy rates at the zero lower bound, it is still unclear if and when economies will be able to successfully reopen and put an end to the COVID-19 recession. We are now recommending only a small relative overweight of two percentage points for spread product versus the benchmark index (Chart 5), leaving room to add more should the news on the virus and global growth take a turn for the better. Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Slightly Overweight Credit GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil We also remain neutral on overall portfolio duration exposure. Our Global Duration Indicator, which contains growth data like our global leading economic indicator and the global ZEW expectations index, has plunged and is signaling bond yields will stay depressed over the next six months (Chart 6). Yet at the same time, yields in most countries have been unable to hit new lows after the panic-driven bond rally in late February and early March, even as global oil prices have collapsed and inflation expectations remain depressed, suggesting that yields already discount a lot of bad news. Chart 6Our Duration Indicator Is Signaling Government Bond Yields Will Stay Low Our Duration Indicator Is Signaling Government Bond Yields Will Stay Low Our Duration Indicator Is Signaling Government Bond Yields Will Stay Low We do not see much value in taking a big directional bet on yields through overall duration exposure at the present time. We also think it is far too early to contemplate reducing duration – even with many global equity and credit markets having rallied sharply off the lows – given the persistent uncertainty over the timing of a recovery in global growth. Thus, we are maintaining a neutral overall portfolio exposure (Chart 7). Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: At Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: At Benchmark Overall Portfolio Duration: At Benchmark Chart 8Country Allocation: Favor Those With Higher Betas To Global Yields Country Allocation: Favor Those With Higher Betas To Global Yields Country Allocation: Favor Those With Higher Betas To Global Yields Within the government bond side of the model bond portfolio, we recommend focusing more on country allocation to generate outperformance. That means concentrating exposures in relatively higher yielding markets like the US, Canada and peripheral Europe while maintaining underweights in core Europe and Japan, where yields have relatively little room to fall. That allocation also lines up with the sensitivity of each market to changes in the overall level of global bond yields, i.e. the yield beta (Chart 8). By favoring those higher beta markets, the model portfolio would still benefit from a renewed leg down in global bond yields, while still maintaining an overall neutral level of portfolio duration. By favoring those higher beta markets, the model portfolio would still benefit from a renewed leg down in global bond yields. Turning to spread product allocations, we recommend focusing more on policymaker responses to the COVID-19 recession rather than the downturn itself. Yes, the earlier widening of global high-yield spreads is forecasting a sharp plunge in global growth and rising unemployment rates (Chart 9, top panel). At the same time, the now double-digit year-over-year growth in global central bank balance sheets - a measure that has led global high-yield bond excess returns by one year in the years after the Global Financial Crisis (bottom panel) – is pointing to a period of improved global corporate bond market performance over the next 6-12 months. Chart 9Global Corporate Performance Should Benefit From Global QE Global Corporate Performance Should Benefit From Global QE Global Corporate Performance Should Benefit From Global QE In other words, we are focusing on global QE rather than global recession, while maintaining a modest recommended overall weighting on global spread product. Chart 10Credit Allocation: Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying Credit Allocation: Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying Credit Allocation: Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying That allocation could be larger, but we suggest picking the lowest hanging fruit in the credit universe rather than going for the highest beta credit markets. That means concentrating spread product allocations on the parts of global credit markets where central banks are directly buying (Chart 10). We are focusing on global QE rather than global recession, while maintaining a modest recommended overall weighting on global spread product. In the US, that means overweighting US investment grade corporate bonds (particularly those with maturities of less than five years), US Ba-rated high-yield that the Fed is now allowed to hold in its corporate bond buying program, and euro area investment grade corporate bonds (excluding bank debt) that the ECB is also buying in its increased bond purchase programs. Chart 11Stay Underweight EM Credit Stay Underweight EM Credit Stay Underweight EM Credit One new change we are making this week is upgrading US agency commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) to overweight, funding by a reduction in US agency residential mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to underweight. While the Fed is still buying agency MBS debt in its new QE programs, MBS spreads have already compressed substantially and are now exposed to potential refinancing risk as eligible US homeowners look to take advantage of the recent plunge in US mortgage rates. We prefer to increase the allocation to agency CMBS, which the Fed can now buy within its expanded QE programs and which offer more attractive spreads than agency MBS (middle panel). One part of the spread product universe where we continue to recommend an underweight stance is USD-denominated EM corporate and sovereign debt. The time to buy those markets will be when the US dollar has clearly peaked and global growth has clearly bottomed. Neither of those conditions is in place now, with the price momentum in both the EM currency index and the trade-weighted US dollar still tilted towards a stronger greenback. That backdrop is unlikely to change in the next few months, suggesting a defensive stance on EM credit is still warranted (Chart 11). A defensive stance on EM credit is still warranted. Model bond portfolio yield and tracking error considerations The selective global government bond and credit portfolio we have just outlined does not come without a cost. While we are currently overweight countries with higher-yielding government bonds, our underweight positions on riskier spread product like EM debt and lower-rated US junk bonds bring the yield of our model portfolio down to 1.8%, –15bps below the yield of the model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 12). We feel that is an acceptable level of “negative carry” given the still heightened levels of uncertainty over global growth. This leads us to focus more on relative value between countries and sectors to generate outperformance that we expect to offset the impact of underweighting the highest yielding credit markets. Chart 12Portfolio Yield: Moderately Below Benchmark Portfolio Yield: Moderately Below Benchmark Portfolio Yield: Moderately Below Benchmark Chart 13Portfolio Volatility: Currently High, But Expected To Fall Portfolio Volatility: Currently High, But Expected To Fall Portfolio Volatility: Currently High, But Expected To Fall Finally, turning to the risk budget of the model portfolio, we are aiming for a “moderate” overall tracking error, or the gap between the portfolio’s volatility and that of the benchmark index. However, given our pro-risk positioning in the first two months of 2020, combined with the extreme volatility in markets during the first quarter, the realized portfolio tracking error blew through our self-imposed ceiling of 100bps (Chart 13). We expect this to settle down in the coming months as the recent changes in our positioning start to be reflected in the trailing volatility of our portfolio. Bottom Line: Given the ongoing uncertainty over when the COVID-19 pandemic and economy-crushing global lockdown will end, we are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure. Instead, we recommend focusing more on country allocation and spread product relative value to generate outperformance, favoring markets where there is direct involvement from central banks.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate shaktis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "What Bond Investors Should Do After The 'Great Correction'", dated March 3 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Train Is Empty", dated March 10, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q1/2020 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Praise Credit & Blame Duration", dated January 14, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Traversing The Turmoil Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: While it’s possible that we are close to the US economic trough, we don’t see any immediate upside in Treasury yields. Investors should keep portfolio duration at benchmark and await signs of recovery in our preferred global growth indicators. Spread Product: Investors should buy spread products that offer attractive spreads relative to history and that benefit from Fed support. We favor: Aaa non-agency CMBS, Agency CMBS, Aaa ABS, municipal bonds and investment grade corporate bonds. High-Yield: We recommend an overweight allocation to Ba-rated high-yield corporates and an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds rated B and lower. Ba-rated bonds will benefit from Fed support and value in the B-rated and below credit tiers does not adequately compensate for likely default losses. Feature Chart 1Fed Actions Spur Rally Fed Actions Spur Rally Fed Actions Spur Rally Even though the economy remains closed and most of us are still confined to our homes, the mood in financial markets has shifted during the past few weeks. Risk assets are rallying as investors react to a cresting in the number of new COVID-19 cases and an unprecedented fiscal and monetary response. Since the Fed announced that it would step into the corporate bond market on March 23, equities have outpaced Treasuries by 28% and high-yield bonds have beaten the Treasury benchmark by 15% (Chart 1). Treasury securities initially rallied after the landmark Fed announcement but have only kept pace with cash during the past two weeks (Chart 1, bottom panel). This reversal in markets begs the question: Is the bottom already in? In this week’s report we ask that question about several different US bond sectors. Too Early To Call The Bottom In Treasury Yields At least in the Treasury market, we think it is premature to call the bottom in yields. Chart 2The Depths Of The Downturn The Depths Of The Downturn The Depths Of The Downturn In prior reports we outlined a checklist to call the trough in Treasury yields.1 Two of the items on that checklist were: a severe deterioration in the US economic data and signs of economic recovery in the rest of the world, particularly in those places where the pandemic struck first – like China. We are certainly now seeing the bad US economic data. The Economic Surprise Index is just off its all-time low and a composite of 10 high-frequency economic indicators compiled by the New York Federal Reserve is at its lowest point since the series began in 2008 (Chart 2). Similarly, weekly initial jobless claims set a record three weeks ago. Though they remain extremely elevated, new claims have declined in each of the past two weeks (Chart 2, bottom panel). All this at least raises the possibility that we are close to the trough in US economic growth. However, our second criterion of improving demand outside the US, particularly in China, has not been met. This is crucial because bond investors will need to see that there is light at the end of the tunnel before concluding that US economic activity will trend higher. China’s Manufacturing PMI bounced to just above 50 in March, suggesting that only a small majority of firms experienced better economic conditions in March compared to February. China’s credit impulse is advancing, demonstrating that policymakers are pumping a large amount of stimulus into the economy. But high-frequency growth barometers – like the CRB Raw Industrials index, the performance of cyclical versus defensive equity sectors and the trend in Emerging Market currencies – all remain downbeat (Chart 3). Bond investors will need to see improving demand outside the US before concluding that US economic activity will trend higher. For Treasury yields, the broad CRB Raw Industrials commodity benchmark is particularly important. This is because the ratio between the CRB index and the price of gold closely tracks the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 4). In a typical economic downturn, we first see Treasury yields and the CRB index fall together as global demand weakens. Then, monetary policy responds by turning more accommodative, leading to a rebound in the price of gold as investors start to reckon with the potential long-run inflationary impact of monetary stimulus. Eventually, bond yields will bottom. But this will only occur once the stimulus seeps through to the real economy and gains in the CRB index start to outpace gains in gold. Chart 3No Global Growth Recovery Yet No Global Growth Recovery Yet No Global Growth Recovery Yet Chart 4Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Track The CRB/Gold Ratio The dynamic described above means that we should expect Treasury yields to lag risk assets as the market bottoms. In other words, we will see a sustained rebound in equity prices and corporate bond excess returns before Treasury yields move meaningfully higher. This is especially true in this cycle because the Fed has indicated that it will be slow to shift away from its accommodative policy stance. Bottom Line: While it’s possible that we are close to the US economic trough, we don’t see any immediate upside in Treasury yields. Investors should keep portfolio duration at benchmark and await signs of recovery in our preferred global growth indicators. To hedge against the risk of higher Treasury yields without making a large duration bet, investors should implement duration-neutral curve steepeners. We recommend going long the 5-year bullet and short the duration-matched 2/10 barbell.2 Is The Bottom In For Investment Grade Spread Product Excess Returns? We hesitate to call the bottom in overall spread product returns versus Treasuries. However, we do see many buying opportunities in specific US fixed income sectors. In deciding which sectors to own, we advise investors to search for sectors that: (A)  Have attractive spreads and (B)  Benefit from one or more of the Fed’s recently announced programs We described each of the Fed’s different lending facilities in last week’s Special Report, and will not repeat that exercise this week.3 Instead, we run through a list of sectors where we think spreads have already peaked and that bond investors should own today. Aaa CMBS Aaa-rated CMBS, both non-agency and agency-backed, meet our two criteria of offering attractive spreads and benefiting from Fed support (Chart 5). The Aaa non-agency CMBS index spread is 119 bps wider than at the end of 2019, and the securities can be used as collateral under the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF). Specifically, bondholders can borrow from TALF against their Aaa non-agency CMBS collateral at a rate of OIS + 125 bps (Chart 5, panel 2). TALF will also impose a haircut of around 15% on CMBS collateral. Chart 5Buy Aaa CMBS Buy Aaa CMBS Buy Aaa CMBS Agency-backed CMBS are even more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. The Agency CMBS index spread is 50 bps above its end-2019 level and the Fed is directly purchasing Agency CMBS as part of its ongoing mortgage-backed securities purchases. As of April 15, the Fed had purchased $5.7 billion of Agency CMBS since it announced CMBS purchases on March 23. The outstanding par value of the Bloomberg Barclays Agency CMBS index is about $204 billion. If the Fed’s current pace of purchases continues for one year, it will own just under half of the index’s par value. Aaa ABS Though the spread is not quite as attractive as for Aaa non-agency CMBS, the spread on Aaa-rated consumer ABS is 115 bps wider since the end of 2019 (Chart 6). As with CMBS, this sector also benefits from TALF with an interest rate of OIS + 125 bps, and an even smaller haircut. Chart 6Buy Aaa Consumer ABS & Munis Buy Aaa Consumer ABS & Munis Buy Aaa Consumer ABS & Munis Municipal Bonds We also like the opportunity in municipal bonds. Spreads between Aaa-rated municipal bond yields and Treasuries have come down off their recent all-time highs but remain attractive compared to historical levels (Chart 6, bottom panel). The Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) offers direct 2-year loans to state & local governments. This will provide a back-stop for municipal debt with a maturity of 2 years or less but will also help municipalities meet interest payments on longer-maturity bonds when they are due. Aaa-rated CMBS, both non-agency and agency-backed, meet our two criteria of offering attractive spreads and benefit­ing from Fed support. We would therefore advise investors to buy municipal bonds at both the short and long ends of the curve. We also do not rule out further Fed measures to support the municipal bond market in the coming weeks, possibly even secondary market bond purchases. The amount of Fed support for state & local governments so far is much less than what is being done for the corporate sector. There is also no convincing moral hazard argument against scaling-up support for investment grade rated munis, especially when the Fed is already supporting some parts of the high-yield corporate market. Investment Grade Corporates As mentioned above, the Fed is providing an exceptional amount of policy support to the investment grade corporate bond market, mainly through three facilities: The Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) that will purchase corporate bonds and ETFs in the secondary market. The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) that will purchase new bond issues in the primary market. The Main Street New and Expanded Lending Facilities (MSNLF & MSELF) that will purchase corporate loans from banks, removing them from bank balance sheets. All three of these facilities support the investment grade corporate bond market, and investment grade corporate spreads remain elevated compared to history across all credit tiers (Chart 7). Chart 7Buy Investment Grade Corporates Buy Investment Grade Corporates Buy Investment Grade Corporates Bottom Line: Investors should buy spread products that offer attractive spreads relative to history and that benefit from Fed support. We favor: Aaa non-agency CMBS, Agency CMBS, Aaa ABS, municipal bonds and investment grade corporate bonds. Have High-Yield Spreads Already Peaked? In the high-yield market we follow the same rules we applied in the previous section. We want to buy sectors that have attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. Within high-yield, the Ba credit tier meets these criteria as it offers an elevated spread and loans to Ba-rated issuers are eligible under the MSNLF and MSELF. The SMCCF will also purchase some high-yield ETFs and both the SMCCF and PMCCF will purchase securities that were recently downgraded to Ba from Baa. However, for the most part, securities rated B and below will not benefit from the Fed’s new facilities and thus will trade purely on fundamentals.4 This demarcation between securities rated Ba and above and those rated B and below is already showing up in excess returns. Since the Fed first announced corporate bond purchases on March 23, Ba-rated junk bonds have outperformed Treasuries by 16.88%, beating B-rated bonds (13.84%), Caa-rated bonds (9.53%) and the lowest Ca/C-rated credit tier (6.85%) (Table 1). Table 1Corporate Bond Performance Since Announcement Of Fed Purchases Is The Bottom Already In? Is The Bottom Already In? Assessing High-Yield Fundamentals Even without Fed support, lower-tier junk bonds are still worth buying if spreads provide adequate compensation for expected defaults. We assessed the likely magnitude of the looming default cycle in a recent Special Report.5 One main conclusion from that report is that, due to elevated corporate sector leverage, the recovery rate on defaulted debt will likely be low during the next 12 months – on the order of 20-25%. Second, based on the expected magnitude and duration of the current economic shock, we expect a significant surge in the speculative grade corporate default rate during the next 12 months, likely hitting a range of 9%-13%. Even without Fed support, lower-tier junk bonds are still worth buying if spreads provide adequate compensation for expected defaults.  With these default loss assumptions in hand, we can see what sort of buffer is priced into different high-yield credit tiers. Charts 8-10 show calendar-year excess returns for Ba, B and Caa-C high-yield credit tiers on the vertical axes. On the horizontal axes, the charts show the index spread at the start of the 12-month investment horizon less realized default losses over the course of the year.6 Chart 8Ba Default-Adjusted Spread Is The Bottom Already In? Is The Bottom Already In? Chart 9B Default-Adjusted Spread Is The Bottom Already In? Is The Bottom Already In? Chart 10Caa-C Default-Adjusted Spread Is The Bottom Already In? Is The Bottom Already In? We first observe that a Default-Adjusted Spread below 200 bps usually coincides with negative excess returns for all three credit tiers. In fact, for the Caa-C tier, we’d like to see a Default-Adjusted Spread above 500 bps before going long. Second, the green diamonds in all three charts identify likely outcomes for the next 12 months in three different default loss scenarios. The “Mild Scenario” is defined as a 6% speculative grade default rate and 25% recovery rate. The “Moderate Scenario” is defined as a 9% speculative grade default rate and 25% recovery rate. The “Severe Scenario” is defined as a 12% default rate and 25% recovery rate.7 Based on those choices, we’d place our base case default loss assumptions for the next 12 months somewhere between the Moderate and Severe scenarios. Charts 8-10 clearly show that, while Ba-rated issuers might still perform decently, the B-rated and below credit tiers are not priced at all for our base case default outlook. Note that this analysis does not consider Fed support in any way. Factoring that in, Ba-rated bonds look even better compared to bonds rated B and below. Bottom Line: We recommend an overweight allocation to Ba-rated high-yield corporates and an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds rated B and lower. Ba-rated bonds will benefit from Fed support and value in the B-rated and below credit tiers does not adequately compensate for likely default losses.    Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When And Where Will Bond Yields Trough?”, dated March 10, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on why we recommend this yield curve positioning please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Life At The Zero Bound”, dated March 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 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 As we noted in last week’s Special Report, some B-rated issuers will benefit from the MSELF. But this support is minor compared to what is being offered to securities rated Ba and higher. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis”, dated March 31, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6  We use Ba and Caa-C default losses for those credit tiers. For B-rated bonds, we found that overall speculative grade default losses work slightly better than default losses for the B credit tier specifically. 7 We use historical correlations to translate overall speculative grade default rate assumptions into default rate assumptions for the Ba and Caa-C credit tiers. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Our conservative dividend growth assumptions especially for the next three years – largely mimicking the GFC experience – result in an SPX 3,000 fair value target. Relative performance already reflects the jump in demand for packaged foods. A firm US dollar and an ongoing profit margin squeeze at a time when relative valuations have returned to the historical mean compel us to downgrade the S&P packaged foods index to neutral. An upward trending demand profile, a fortress of a balance sheet, exemplary recession resilience, and sustained M&A activity, all warrant an overweight stance in the S&P software index. Recent Changes Trim the S&P packaged foods index to neutral today, which pushes the S&P consumer staples sector to a benchmark allocation. Boost the S&P software index to overweight today, which lifts the S&P tech sector to a benchmark allocation. Table 1 New SPX Target New SPX Target Feature The SPX jumped to a five-week high last week, on the back of news that the economy will gradually reopen next month. In other news, GILD’s remdesivir drug showed some positive early signs in fighting off the coronavirus, sparking an impressive late-week rally in the SPX. From a macro perspective, flush monetary liquidity and extremely easy fiscal policy remain the dominant market forces. While we remain confident that equities will be higher on a 9-12 month cyclical time horizon, we believe that the easy money since the March 23 lows has already been made and a consolidation phase now looms. Thus, monetizing some of these gains would make sense at the current juncture. Keep in mind that the SPX, junk spreads and the CBOE’s put/call ratio have returned to their respective means since 2018 (horizontal lines denote the historical averages, Chart 1). Tack on the stiff resistance that the S&P 500 will face near the 50-day and 100-week moving averages, and a lateral move is likely in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, in our seminal report “SPX 3,000?” on July 10, 2017 we introduced our SPX dividend discount model (DDM) when we first came up with the SPX 3,000 target.1 It is now custom to update our DDM every April when the previous year’s annual S&P 500 dividend payment is finalized from the Standard & Poor’s. Chart 1Consolidation Mode Consolidation Mode Consolidation Mode Chart 2Dividends Rule Dividends Rule Dividends Rule As a reminder, we have been and remain very conservative in our DDM assumptions. Again this year we assume that no buybacks will occur, a long held assumption of ours, i.e. we pencil in a steady divisor in the coming five-year time frame. 2025 is our terminal year when dividend growth settles at 6.6%, 60bps below the long-term average (bottom panel, Chart 2). Our 8.2% discount rate mirrors the corporate junk bond yield historical average. This year we use two different dividend growth approaches: our own estimates and alternatively the S&P 500 dividend futures derived growth. In the spirit of conservatism, we pick the lowest point hit in early April across the different dividend futures expirations. Tables 2 & 3 summarize the results. In the dividend futures derived approach, SPX fair value is close to 2,110. Granted, such dividend contractions for two years running (33% in 2020 and 14% in 2021, Table 2) are extreme and highly unlikely. Moreover, dividend futures have since rebounded violently. However, we stick with them to derive our worst case SPX value. Table 2SPX Dividend Discount Model: Using S&P Dividend Futures Growth Assumptions New SPX Target New SPX Target Our own dividend growth estimates result in an SPX 3,000 fair value target (Table 3). While our assumptions are not as dire as the nadir in dividend futures, they are slightly more conservative than the GFC experience. As a reminder, in the aftermath of the GFC dividends contracted by 20% in 2009 and then recovered rising by 1% and 16% in 2010 and 2011, respectively (please click here if you would like to receive our DDM and insert your own assumptions). Table 3SPX Dividend Discount Model: Using USES Dividend Growth Assumptions New SPX Target New SPX Target Building up on this analysis, we want to identify sectors that are at risk of a dividend cut, and thus pose the greatest threat to our SPX dividend projections. Table 4 shows the 2019 sectorial dividends, profits, and the payout ratio along with indebtedness. While during the Great Recession financials cut their handsome dividends, the current recession is not a financial crisis and we doubt the financials sector will cut their dividends, at least not as aggressively as in the GFC (Table 5). Table 4S&P 500 GICS1 Sector Dividend Analysis New SPX Target New SPX Target Table 5The GFC S&P 500 GICS1 Sector Dividend Experience New SPX Target New SPX Target Energy is a clear standout, but neither XOM nor CVX will forego their dividend aristocrat status (minimum 25 consecutive years of rising dividends) and chop their dividends. In other words, these Oil Majors will do everything in their power including raising debt to ever so modestly increase their dividends and maintain their aristocrat status. Thus, $24bn of energy sector related dividends are safe or 55% of the overall energy sector’s dividend. Keep in mind that the energy sector increased their dividends in the GFC (Tables 4 & 5). Industrials (GE is no longer a big dividend payer), materials, real estate and select consumer discretionary are sore spots, but not large enough to undermine the SPX (Table 4). Tech, health care and consumer staples are in excellent shape and judging by JNJ’s and COST’s recent dividend hikes, these sectors that enjoy mostly pristine balance sheets may even increase their payouts as they did during the GFC (Tables 4 & 5). While utilities and telecom services are debt saddled, their defensive stature and stable cash flow streams along with their history of steady dividend payments also do not pose a real threat to the SPX’s dividend (Tables 4 & 5). This leaves financials as the key sector to monitor for a possible large inflicted wound to the SPX dividend. In the most adverse scenario where the Fed instructs banks to eliminate their dividends, as the BoE and the ECB recently did in Europe, then the SPX dividend will contract, but only by 15%, ceteris paribus. This is because last year the tech sector had the highest dividend weight in the SPX and also because the financials sector’s dividend weight has fallen from 30% in 2007 to 15% in 2019 (Tables 4 & 5). Netting it all out, we are comfortable with our dividend growth assumptions especially for the next three years – largely mimicking the GFC experience – and resulting in an SPX 3,000 fair value target. The path of least resistance for the SPX remains higher on a 9-12 month cyclical time horizon. However, given that the easy SPX gains from the March 23, 2020 lows – when we turned cyclically bullish2 – have been made, opportunistic/nimble investors could monetize at least a part of these massive one-month returns. As aforementioned the SPX may face resistance near the 50-day moving average where it attempts to consolidate its recent gains. This week we are downgrading a defensive group to neutral and boosting a deep cyclical group to an above benchmark allocation. Turning Stale Following up from last week’s report, we heed the message from our research to be wary of staples stocks at the depth of the recession and downgrade the S&P packaged foods index to neutral. This move also pushes the S&P consumer staples sector down to a benchmark allocation from previously overweight. While this defensive index had been severely bruised from the accounting scandal at Kraft/Heinz, it has really flexed its safe haven muscles year-to-date. We use this opportunity to trim exposure down to neutral as we deem that this relative advance has run out of steam, despite the once in a lifetime jump in a number of key demand indicators. Chart 3 shows that food & beverage store retail sales now garner 17% of total retail sales a percentage last hit in the early 1990s. Impressively, not only did industry sales rise in absolute terms, but also overall retail sales suffered a severe setback accentuating last month’s spike. Similarly, food output hit a high mark last month, outpacing overall industrial production that came to a standstill. Food products resource utilization also soared, outpacing overall capacity utilization by 10% (bottom panel, Chart 3). As a result, relative share price momentum came close to accelerating by triple digits on a short-term rate of change basis (Chart 4). While such euphoria is warranted, we reckon that most if not all the good news is already reflected in prices, especially given the early signs of a possible reopening of the US economy some time next month. Importantly, sell side analyst optimism has climbed to a similar height observed in late-2015/early-2016 when industry 12-month forward EPS were slated to outshine the broad market by over 10% (bottom panel, Chart 4). Chart 3Demand Boost… Demand Boost… Demand Boost… Chart 4…Is Already Baked In …Is Already Baked In …Is Already Baked In Worrisomely, despite the rising demand profile, operating margins have been drifting lower over the past decade and a further profit margin squeeze remains a high probability outcome (Chart 5). Finally, on the food export front, the rising US dollar is warning that volumes will remain in check in coming quarters (greenback shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 6). All of this is reflected in valuations that have returned to the 25-year mean with packaged food manufacturers now trading at a 9% forward P/E premium to the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Margin Trouble Margin Trouble Margin Trouble Chart 6Past Expiry Date Past Expiry Date Past Expiry Date In sum, relative performance already reflects the jump in demand for packaged foods. A firm US dollar and an ongoing profit margin squeeze at a time when relative valuations have returned to the historical mean compel us to downgrade the S&P packaged foods index to neutral. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P packaged foods index to neutral, today for a loss of 20% since inception. This downgrade also pushes the S&P consumer staples sector to neutral for a loss of 11% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PACK – MDLZ, SJM, KHC, CPB, MKC, CAG, TSN, GIS, HSY, HRL, K, LW. Boost Software To Overweight We recently monetized over 50% relative gains in our overweight in the S&P software index, but today we are compelled to lift this heavyweight tech sub-index back to an overweight stance. One key reason for our renewed bullishness is that for the second time in the past 15 months, software stocks managed to eke out relative gains when the broad market fell peak-to-trough 20% and 35% in late-2018 and in Q1/2020, respectively (Chart 7). This resilience on the way down confirms both the defensive stature of this services tech subgroup and simultaneously our long held belief that when growth is scarce investors will flock to secular growth stocks. Chart 7Recession Proof Recession Proof Recession Proof As a result and following up from our recent data processing upgrade, another defensive services tech group, we are compelled to augment exposure to the S&P software index to overweight. Last week we showed that the tech sector (along with financials and consumer discretionary) best the broad market from the recessionary troughs onward, signaling that the key software sub group will likely lead the recovery.3 Software investment is on a multi decade upward trajectory and is slated to rise further in coming quarters as overall spending takes the back seat, but defensive software capex remains resilient (Chart 8). Not only do corporate executives upgrade software in downturns as these upgrades yield near instantaneous return on investment and are immediately productivity enhancing, but also the push to cloud-based services will only accelerate during the ongoing recession (bottom panel, Chart 8). Tack on that the global coronavirus social distancing measures are also boosting demand for remote working services specifically, and software sales will continue to grind higher (Chart 9). Chart 8Capex Market Share Gains Capex Market Share Gains Capex Market Share Gains Chart 9Rising Demand Buoys Sales Rising Demand Buoys Sales Rising Demand Buoys Sales Meanwhile, industry M&A remains robust and both the number of deals are still rising at a brisk rate and the premia paid remain near historically high levels (Chart 10). Contrary to a slew of corporations that have announced dividend cuts and equity buyback suspensions, pristine software balance sheets underscore that shareholder friendly activities will remain in place, if not accelerate, during the current recession (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 10What’s Not To Like? What’s Not To Like? What’s Not To Like? Chart 11Model Says Buy Model Says Buy Model Says Buy Our macro-based software EPS growth model does an excellent job in capturing all these moving forces and it is signaling that industry profits will continue to expand at a healthy pace for the rest of the year, in marked contrast to the broad market’s expected profit contraction (Chart 11). Adding it all up, an upward trending demand profile, a fortress of a balance sheet, exemplary recession resilience, and sustained M&A activity, all bode well for an earnings-led outperformance phase in the S&P software index. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P software index to overweight, today. This upgrade also lifts the S&P tech sector to neutral for a loss of 5% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT – MSFT, ADBE, CRM, ORCL, INTU, NOW, ADSK, ANSS, SNPS, CDNS, FTNT, PAYC, CTXS, NLOK.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “SPX 3,000?” dated July 10, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, ““The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn”” dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3    Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril” dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.     Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations New SPX Target New SPX Target Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth May 10, 2018 Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%) June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).

Highlights As government bond yields have fallen to zero or below, many of our clients have asked us how to obtain income from other asset classes. In this report we analyze three income opportunities in the equity market: high-dividend yield stocks, dividend growth stocks, and preferred shares. High-dividend yield stocks have a large style bias to the value factor. Thus, investors who wish to invest in high-dividend yield stocks might be better served by investing in dividend plays in the non-value universe. Dividend growth stocks – such as the ones in the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats index – are historically less likely to cut their dividends, thanks to their defensive nature and corporate incentives. The Aristocrats should continue increasing dividends during this crisis. Our screening points to the following as the most attractive: ExxonMobil, Franklin Resources, 3M, Procter & Gamble, AT&T, and Genuine Parts. We would not buy US preferred shares, given that they are heavily weighted to Financials, a sector that will do poorly in an environment of low interest rates. Feature As the crisis caused by COVID-19 has battered risk assets, many of our clients have asked us how to obtain income in this current environment. In the past, investors could rely on a consistent coupon provided by government bonds. However, this is no longer the case. The crisis has dragged DM government bond yields around the world to below or near zero, which means that investors looking for income opportunities must search outside of government bonds, in riskier asset classes. One such asset class is equities. Over the last 50 years, income return has accounted for roughly a third of the total return of global equities (Chart 1, top panel). Moreover, in contrast to other sources of equity return such as earnings growth or multiple expansion, income return is always positive, making it much more consistent through time as well as resilient to recessions (Chart 1, middle and bottom panels). However, there are a couple of drawbacks to equities as income-generating assets: The income yield of equities is not particularly high, especially when one compares them with asset classes such as corporate debt which have similar or lower volatility (Chart 2, top panel). As opposed to fixed-income assets, where a set income return is guaranteed provided there is no default and the security is held to maturity, companies can actually cut their equity dividends when they come under stress. As a consequence, while trailing dividend yield is often an accurate indicator of future income return, it can overestimate it during bear markets (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 1Dividends Make Up A Substantial Portion Of Equity Returns Dividends Make Up A Substantial Portion Of Equity Returns Dividends Make Up A Substantial Portion Of Equity Returns Chart 2The Income Return Of Equities Is Low And Can Be Deceiving During Bear Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets In this report we examine two different dividend strategies that try to address the issues above: high-dividend yield stocks and dividend growth stocks. In addition to these strategies within the common equity space, we also explore whether preferred shares can be an attractive income opportunity. For each of these three income strategies we try to answer the following questions: How are these dividend indices constructed? How has each strategy performed historically? How has it performed during bear markets? What is the sector composition of each strategy? How are valuations now? To answer these questions, we examine the MSCI High-Dividend Yield indices, the S&P Dividend Aristocrat indices and the iShares Preferred Shares indices. Moreover, based on our analysis, we also make some recommendations as to which is the best income strategy in equity markets for the current environment. Please see our Investment Implications section for more details. High-Dividend Yield Stocks As their name suggests, high-dividend yield indices select for stocks with the highest dividend yields. In practice however, many more screening criteria are imposed. In order to ensure some stability in dividend payout, MSCI excludes REITs, payout outliers, negative dividend growth stocks, low-quality stocks, and low-performance stocks. Once all of these screening criteria are applied, MSCI selects for stocks which have a dividend yield that is at least 30% higher than its benchmark. Table 1 shows details on these screening criteria. Table 1Criteria For MSCI High-Dividend Yield Indices Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets How has the MSCI High-Dividend index performed historically? Since 1996, high-dividend yield stocks have outperformed the benchmark at the global level by 50% (Chart 3, top panel). This outperformance has been mostly a result of the income advantage this index provides, given that price return has outperformed only by a paltry 3%. It is also worth noting that price performance has been particularly poor since the Financial Crisis, and has actually caused high-dividend yield stocks to underperform on a total return basis over the past decade. Relative performance has been flat to down, even in those markets where high-dividend yield had been very successful previously such as Canada, Japan, and Emerging Markets (Chart 3, bottom panel). What has caused this underperformance? One reason is the low allocation that the high-yield index has to Technology (Chart 4, panel 1). Another reason is style tilt. Factor analysis reveals that the high-dividend yield index has a very strong value bias1 (Chart 4, panel 2). This strong style tilt is likely responsible for the poor relative price performance of high-dividend yield stocks, as value has been notorious for underperforming over the past decade (Chart 4, panel 3). Chart 3High-Dividend Yield Stocks Have Not Outperformed In The Past Decade High-Dividend Yield Stocks Have Not Outperformed In The Past Decade High-Dividend Yield Stocks Have Not Outperformed In The Past Decade Chart 4The High-Dividend Yield Index Has A Strong Value Bias The High-Dividend Yield Index Has A Strong Value Bias The High-Dividend Yield Index Has A Strong Value Bias   But while high-dividend yield stocks are an implicit bet on value, there is evidence that investing in high-dividend yield stocks within the non-value universe is a profitable strategy. In the paper “What Difference Do Dividends Make?”, Coronover et al. found that high-dividend yield companies actually outperform their low-dividend yield counterparts in the high and median price-to-book universes2 (Table 2). Additionally, they found that high-dividend yield stocks also performed better vis-à-vis low-dividend yield stocks in the mid-cap and large-cap universes. Table 2High-Dividend And Low-Dividend Yield Stocks Sorted By Price-To-Book And Market Cap Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Growth Stocks Dividend growth stocks are securities that have increased their dividend for a certain number of consecutive years.  In the US, companies with a track record of at least 25 years of dividend increases are usually called “dividend aristocrats”, while companies with a 10-year track record are known as “dividend achievers”.3 However, the requirements to be classified as a dividend aristocrat or a dividend achiever are not uniform across index providers, and even within providers they are not uniform across different countries, which means that investors need to pay attention to selection criteria when investing in a dividend growth index (Table 3). In this report we will focus on the best-known dividend growth index: the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats index. Table 3Different Criteria To Become A Dividend Aristocrat In Different Countries Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets How has this index performed historically? The S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats index has outperformed the S&P 500 by nearly 60% since 1995 in total-return terms and by more than 30% in price terms. Additionally, it has enjoyed less volatility and has outperformed significantly during recessions (Chart 5, panel 1). Chart 5Dividend Aristocrats Outperform During Bear Markets Dividend Aristocrats Outperform During Bear Markets Dividend Aristocrats Outperform During Bear Markets The main difference between the benchmark and the Aristocrats index comes down to sector tilt and leverage.  The second panel of Chart 5 shows that the Aristocrats index has a large overweight in Consumer Staples and a large underweight in Technology relative to the S&P 500. Meanwhile, while valuations are not that different, and equity profitability is actually lower, the companies in the Aristocrats index are significantly less levered than those of the S&P 500, a testament to their defensive nature (Table 4). Table 4Dividend Aristocrats Have Low Leverage Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets But are dividend aristocrats really a more reliable source of income than the rest of the market? Empirically, they have been. In the US, the likelihood of a dividend increase in any given year has historically been a function of how many consecutive dividend increases a company has done before (Chart 6). Beyond the strong balance sheets and stable business models that dividend aristocrat companies have, this is most likely a result of the incentives created by the asymmetry of the index: A multi-decade policy of dividend increases is a significant investment of time and resources to signal stability to the market. However, the status obtained by this policy – and all the resources devoted to it– is immediately lost the moment dividends are cut, with no possibility of reclaiming it in at least a quarter century.4 Importantly, the longer a company raises dividends the bigger the investment becomes, creating a very high incentive to not cut dividends. That being said, sometimes this incentive is not enough to overcome extreme business conditions, such as those that occurred in 2008. Chart 7 shows that the members of the S&P Dividend Aristocrats index declined by roughly a third during the Financial Crisis, mostly as a result of previously reliable banks that had to cut their dividends in 2008 and 2009.5 Chart 6The Likelihood Of A Dividend Increase Is Higher For Dividend Aristocrats Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Chart 7Extreme Business Conditions Can Force Some Aristocrats Off The Index Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets   Preferred Shares Preferred shares are securities which have traits of both debt and common equity: Like debt, they have a par value, no voting rights, and they provide a prespecified cash flow. Nevertheless, they do not have a maturity date and they represent an ownership stake in the company, just like common equity. Analyzing the historical performance of preferred shares is difficult since most indices begin only around the Financial Crisis. However, from the limited data we have, we can make some observations: Preferred shares in the US have underperformed common equity, investment- grade debt and high-yield debt since 2004 (Chart 8). They also experienced very deep selloffs during recessions, often similar to the selloffs that common equities have experienced (Table 5). However, preferred shares do seem to have similar return drivers to corporate credit. In particular, much like corporate credit, they tend to fall whenever yields on corporate debt rise (Chart 9). Chart 8Preferred Equity Has Underperformed Credit And Common Equity Preferred Equity Has Underperformed Credit And Common Equity Preferred Equity Has Underperformed Credit And Common Equity Table 5Preferred Equity Has Similar Drawdowns To Common Equity During Recessions Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Chart 9US Preferred Shares React Negatively To Rising Credit Yields US Preferred Shares React Negatively To Rising Credit Yields US Preferred Shares React Negatively To Rising Credit Yields Chart 10US Preferred Shares Are Heavily Tilted To Financials Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets In theory, the co-movement of preferred equity and corporate debt is not that surprising. Much like credit, preferred shares are fixed-income securities which are subject to credit risk. Whenever yields on risky credit rise, these fixed-income securities become relatively less attractive, making their price fall. Chart 11Canadian Preferred Shares Are An Oil Play Canadian Preferred Shares Are An Oil Play Canadian Preferred Shares Are An Oil Play However, what is surprising is that preferred shares have underperformed both investment-grade and high-yield credit. How could an asset that technically has more risk – and thus should offer a better rate of return – underperform for such a long time? One plausible explanation is sector skew. Preferred shares are heavily skewed to Financials, a sector that has underperformed significantly over the past decade (Chart 10). While Financials tend to dominate most preferred indices, other factor may also affect returns. In Canada, the preferred share index is most sensitive to changes in the price of oil – a consequence of both the relatively high weight of Energy in the index, and the importance of the commodity for the Canadian economy (Chart 11). There are many types of preferred shares which include rate-resets, perpetuals, and variable rate. We do not analyze them in this report since indices tracking most of these securities have a very short history. We do advise our clients to be wary of compositional differences between indices, since sector composition could be a larger driver of returns than the type of preferred equity itself. Finally, while it is outside the scope of this report, it is worth remembering that preferred shares might still be worth looking at for taxable investors, given that dividends and interest income are often not taxed at the same rates. Investment Implications Dividend Growth Stocks Investors should consider including dividend growth stocks in their portfolios. Their defensive nature means that they should be able to weather the recession brought about by the coronavirus lockdowns better than the overall market, while their long-term dividend policy implies that these companies will be more reluctant to cut dividends. One drawback of the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrat index is that it is yielding less than 3%. Thus, investors would be better served by selecting individual securities within the index. In order to help with this exercise, we have ranked the companies in the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrat index according to our own GAA Income Score. The score is based on the following three traits: Raw Income: the company’s current dividend yield. Yield Stability: the number of consecutive years the company has raised its dividend. Attractiveness: The company’s current score from the BCA Equity Trading Strategy service. Please find the ranking of the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats in Appendix A. According to our GAA Income Score the best S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats are ExxonMobil, Franklin Resources, 3M, Procter & Gamble, AT&T, and Genuine Parts. High-Dividend Yield Stocks What about high-dividend yield stocks? The MSCI All-Country World High-Dividend Yield index is currently yielding a formidable 5%, making it an attractive income opportunity. However, investors should remember that high-dividend yield stocks have a significant exposure to the value factor. GAA is currently neutral on value versus growth, but we are concerned that value continued to underperform when equities were falling and has not been able to outperform in recent weeks as equities rebounded. For those who do not want to take on value exposure, overweighting high-dividend yield within non-value stocks and mid and large caps might be a better option. Preferred Equity Currently preferred shares have a dividend yield of roughly 5%. Do they make an attractive income opportunity? We don’t believe so. Low interest rates and tepid loan growth even after the quarantines are over will likely weigh on Financials – the sector which preferred shares are most exposed to. Moreover, its strong similarity to corporate debt makes this asset somewhat redundant for investors who already own credit. Appendix Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Dividend Strategies: Exploring Income Opportunities In Equity Markets Juan Correa Ossa  Associate Editor juanc@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 This is in part by construction. The MSCI Value index uses dividend yield as one of its variables to asses value. 2 Mitchell Coronover, Gerald R. Jensen, and Marc W. Simpson, “What Difference Do Dividends Make?”, Financial Analyst Journal, Volume 72, Number 6 (2016). 3 Companies which have increased their dividend for at least 50 years are sometimes called “dividend kings”. 4 Eberner Asem and Ahamsul Alam, “The Market’s Reaction To Consecutive Dividend Increases,” (December 2017). 5 Not all companies exit the index due to dividend cuts. Some companies exit because of corporate restructurings or because they no longer meet the minimum market capitalization to qualify.

Highlights Risk assets have rallied thanks to a healthy dose of economic stimulus and mounting evidence that the number of new COVID-19 cases has peaked. Unfortunately, the odds of a second wave of infections remain high. In the absence of a vaccine or effective treatment, only mass testing can keep the virus at bay. Such testing will become available, but probably not for a few more months.  Meanwhile, the global economy remains depressed. As earnings estimates are revised lower, stocks could give up some of their recent gains. Despite the fact that the supply of goods and services has fallen sharply during this recession, the overall effect has been deflationary. Deflationary pressures should subside later this year as demand picks up, commodity prices rise, and the US dollar weakens. Looking several years out, deglobalization and the increasing politicization of central banking could lead to accelerating inflation. Long-term investors should maintain a structurally below-benchmark duration stance in fixed-income portfolios, and position for steeper yield curves. Now What? Imagine being chased through the woods by an angry bear. You manage to climb a tree, getting high enough so that the bear cannot reach you. You breathe a sigh of relief. You are out of harm's way. Or so you think. You look down, and the bear is waiting for you at the base of the tree. You have no weapons. You feel cold and hungry. It is getting dark. This is the state the world finds itself in today. We have climbed up the tree. The number of new infections has peaked in Italy and Spain, the first large European countries hit by the virus. Hospital admissions in New York are falling. This, combined with a generous dose of economic stimulus, has allowed stocks to rally by 28% from their March 23 intraday lows. Yet, we have neither a vaccine nor a cure for the virus (although as we go to press, unconfirmed news reports suggest that Gilead’s drug, remdesivir, has had success in treating patients at a Chicago hospital). Chart 1Widespread Social Distancing Dampened The Spread Of All Flus And Colds Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree COVID-19 is part of the coronavirus family, which includes four members that are responsible for up to 30% of common colds (most other colds are caused by rhino-viruses). Social distancing has driven the number of cold and influenza-like cases in the US to very low levels (Chart 1). But does anyone really think that the common cold or flu will be permanently eradicated because of recent measures? If not, what will prevent COVID-19, which is no less contagious than these other illnesses, from resurfacing? In short, the bear is still there, waiting for us to reopen the economy. A Deep Recession As we wait, the economic damage continues to mount. The IMF’s baseline scenario foresees the global economy contracting by 3% in 2020, with advanced economies shrinking by 6.1%. This is far deeper than during the 2008/09 financial crisis (Chart 2). The IMF’s projections assume that the pandemic subsides in the second half of 2020, allowing containment measures to be relaxed. If the pandemic were to last longer than that, global output would fall by an additional 3% in 2020 relative to the Fund’s already bleak baseline. A second outbreak next year would push global GDP almost 5% below the IMF’s baseline in 2021, while the combination of a longer outbreak this year and a second outbreak next year would cause the level of output to fall 8% below the 2021 baseline (Chart 3). Chart 2Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year Chart 3Downside Risks To The IMF's Projections Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree The Ties That Bind The sudden stop in economic activity has led to a dramatic surge in unemployment. US initial unemployment claims have risen by a cumulative 22 million over the past four weeks. The true scale of layoffs is probably higher than that, given that some state websites have been unable to handle the flood of insurance applications. Chart 4Only About One-Third Of Those Who Lose Their Jobs Apply For Benefits Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Historically, only about one-third of those laid off have applied for benefits (Chart 4). While the take-up rate will be higher this time – the CARES Act increases weekly unemployment compensation, while expanding eligibility to self-employed workers – it is still reasonable to assume that the claims data do not capture how much of the workforce has been laid idle. The one piece of good news is that at least so far, temporarily laid-off workers account for the vast majority of the increase in unemployment. This is encouraging because it implies that in most cases, the ties that bind workers to firms have not been permanently severed. In this respect, the recovery in employment following this recession may end up resembling that of another “man-made” recession: the 1982 downturn (Chart 5). Back then, policymakers felt that a recession was a price worth paying to quash inflation. Once inflation fell, central banks were able to cut rates, allowing economic activity to recover. Today, the hope is that by shutting down all nonessential businesses, the virus will be quashed, and life will return to normal. Chart 5Comparing The 1982 Recession Versus Today: Employment Edition Comparing The 1982 Recession Versus Today: Employment Edition Comparing The 1982 Recession Versus Today: Employment Edition Exit Plans It remains to be seen whether vanquishing the virus will be as straightforward as vanquishing inflation was in the early 1980s. As we noted last week, in the absence of a vaccine or an effective treatment, our best hope is that mass testing will allow businesses to reopen.1 The technology for such tests already exists; it just has yet to become available on a large enough scale. Just like during the Second World War, the production of weapons necessary to fight the virus will grow at an exponential pace (Chart 6). Chart 6Now Let's Do The Same For Test Kits Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Near-Term Pressures On Risk Assets Exponential change is a difficult concept for the human mind to grasp. What seems painfully slow at first can quickly become unfathomably fast later on. The apocryphal story about the origins of the game of chess comes to mind.2 This puts investors in a bit of a quandary. Growth is likely to recover in the latter half of 2020 as COVID-19 testing becomes pervasive and the effects of fiscal and monetary stimulus make their way through the economy. But, the near-term picture could be soured by news stories of continued acute shortages of medical supplies and delays in providing financial assistance to hard-hit households and businesses, not to mention dire corporate earnings performance. The one piece of good news is that at least so far, temporarily laid-off workers account for the vast majority of the increase in unemployment. Indeed, bottom-up analyst earnings estimates still have further to fall. The Wall Street consensus expects S&P 500 companies to earn $142 per share this year and $174 in 2021. Our US equity strategists are projecting only $100 and $140 in EPS, respectively. Stock prices and earnings estimates generally travel together (Chart 7). On balance, we continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon, owing to the fact that the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield is quite a bit higher than the bond yield (Chart 8). However, we have less conviction about the near-term (3-month) direction of stocks, and would recommend that investors maintain above-average cash levels for now which can be deployed on any major selloff. Chart 7Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term Chart 8Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon   Inflation And Supply Shocks: A Keynesian Paradox? One of the distinguishing features of this recession is that it has involved a simultaneous supply shock and a demand shock. Businesses have had to curb supply in order to allow workers to stay at home, while workers have reduced spending out of fear of going to stores or other venues where they could inadvertently contract the virus. Worries about job losses have further dented demand.  There is no question about what happens to output when both demand and supply decline: output falls. In contrast, the impact on the price level depends on which shock dominates (Chart 9). Chart 9Inflation And Supply Shocks Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree As Appendix 1 illustrates with a set of simple numerical examples, in theory, a negative supply shock spread evenly across all sectors of the economy should cause the price level to rise. This is because unemployed workers, who are no longer contributing to output, will still end up consuming some goods and services by tapping into their savings, taking on new debt, or by receiving income transfers from the government. In the current situation, however, the supply shock has not been spread evenly throughout the economy. Some businesses have been completely shuttered, while others deemed essential have been allowed to operate. As the appendix shows, in such cases, the drop in aggregate demand is likely to be larger than if all sectors were equally impacted. In fact, it is possible for a supply shock to trigger a demand shock that is larger than the supply shock itself, leading to a perverse situation where a decline in supply results in a surfeit of output. A recent paper by Guerrieri, Lorenzoni, Straub, and Werning argues that the current pandemic represents such a “Keynesian supply shock.”3 Intuitively, such perverse supply shocks can arise if workers are cut off from purchasing many of the goods that they would normally buy. When the menu of available goods shrinks, even workers who are still employed could end up saving much of their income. Deflationary For Now All this implies that the pandemic is likely to be deflationary until more businesses reopen. The data seem to bear this out. The US core consumer price index fell by 0.1% month-over-month in March on a seasonally adjusted basis, led by steep declines in airfares and hotel lodging prices. High-frequency indicators, as well as the prices paid components of various purchasing manager indices, suggest that deflationary pressures have persisted into April (Chart 10). Chart 10Deflation Reigns For Now Deflation Reigns For Now Deflation Reigns For Now Shelter inflation was reasonably firm in March but should soften over the coming months. A number of major apartment operators have announced rent freezes. In addition, the lagged effects from a stronger dollar and lower energy prices will contribute to lower goods inflation, while higher unemployment will hold back service inflation. Inflation Should Bounce Back In 2021 The discussion of Keynesian supply shocks suggests that aggregate demand will increase faster than supply as more sectors of the economy reopen. This should ease deflationary pressures. In addition, a rebound in global growth starting in the second half of 2020 will prompt a recovery in commodity prices. The forward oil curve is predicting that Brent and WTI crude prices will rise by 42% and 79%, respectively, over the next 12 months (Chart 11). Inflation expectations and oil prices tend to move closely together (Chart 12). Chart 11H2 2020 Rebound In Growth Will Lift Oil Prices H2 2020 Rebound In Growth Will Lift Oil Prices H2 2020 Rebound In Growth Will Lift Oil Prices Chart 12Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Tend To Move Closely Together Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Tend To Move Closely Together Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Tend To Move Closely Together As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar will weaken over the next 12-to-18 months as global growth rebounds, providing an additional reflationary impulse (Chart 13). Falling unemployment will also eat into labor market slack, helping to support wages. Chart 13Stronger Global Growth In The Back Half Of The Year Will Weaken The Dollar, Putting Upward Pressure On US Inflation Stronger Global Growth In The Back Half Of The Year Will Weaken The Dollar, Putting Upward Pressure On US Inflation Stronger Global Growth In The Back Half Of The Year Will Weaken The Dollar, Putting Upward Pressure On US Inflation The Structural Outlook For Inflation… And Bond Yields Looking further out, the outlook for inflation will depend on whether the structural forces that have suppressed the rise in consumer prices over the past few decades intensify or abate. On the one hand, it is possible that the pandemic will cast a pall over consumer and business sentiment for years to come. If households and firms restrain spending, this would exacerbate deflationary pressures. Likewise, if governments tighten fiscal policy in order to pay off the debts incurred during the pandemic, this could weigh on growth. On the other hand, high government debt levels may increase the political pressure on central banks to keep rates low, even once the labor market recovers. This could eventually lead to economic overheating in two-to-three years. Chart 14Global Trade Was Already Stagnating Global Trade Was Already Stagnating Global Trade Was Already Stagnating A partial roll back in globalization could also cause consumer prices to rise. Global trade was already stagnant even before the trade war flared up (Chart 14). The pandemic may further inflame nationalist sentiment. Against the backdrop of high unemployment, Donald Trump is likely to campaign as a “war president,” relentlessly chiding Joe Biden for having too cozy a relationship with China. On balance, we suspect that inflation will rise more than expected over the long haul. This is not a particularly high bar to clear. Investors currently expect US inflation to average only 1.2% over the next decade based on TIPS breakevens. Market-based inflation expectations are even more subdued in most other advanced economies. If inflation does surprise to the upside, long-term bond yields are likely to increase by more than expected. Investors should maintain a structurally below-benchmark duration stance in fixed-income portfolios, and position for steeper yield curves.   APPENDIX 1: Keynesian Supply Shocks Suppose there are two sectors, A and B. The economy consists of 2,000 workers, with each sector employing 1,000 workers. To keep things simple, assume that workers in each sector evenly split their consumption between the two sectors. Thus, a worker in sector A spends as much on goods from sector A as from sector B, and vice versa. Also assume that each worker, if employed, produces $1,000 of goods and receives a salary of $1,000 for his or her efforts. With this in mind, let us consider three scenarios: Scenario 1: Both Sectors Are Open For Business In this scenario, $1 million of good A and $1 million of good B are produced and supplied to the market. Since each of the 2,000 workers spends $500 on good A and $500 on good B, a total of $1 million of both goods are demanded. Aggregate demand equals aggregate supply. Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Scenario 2: Partial Closure Of Both Sectors Suppose that half the workers in both sectors are laid off. While the unemployed workers do not earn any income, they still spend half as much as they used to by tapping into their savings ($250 on good A and $250 on good B for each unemployed worker). Each employed worker continues to spend $500 on good A and $500 on good B. Now there is $500,000 in total of each good produced, but $750,000 of each good demanded. Aggregate demand exceeds supply. Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Scenario 3: Sector A, Deemed The Essential Sector, Remains Completely Open, While B Is Closed In this case, all sector A workers are still employed, earning $1,000 each. Since good B is no longer available for purchase, sector A workers increase spending on good A by 20% (from $500 to $600 per worker). Workers in sector B are all unemployed. However, they continue to tap into their savings. Rather than spending $250 on good A as they did in scenario 2, they increase their expenditures on good A by 20% (from $250 to $300). A total of $900,000 of good A is now demanded ($600*1,000+$300*1,000), which is less than the $1 million of good A supplied. Aggregate supply now exceeds demand for the part of the economy that is still open. The chart and table below summarize the results. The key insight is that a 50% shock to the entire economy curbs aggregate demand less than a 100% shock to half the economy. This implies that demand is likely to grow faster than supply as mass testing allows more of the economy to reopen. Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Testing Times,” dated April 9, 2020. 2  In one account, the King of India was so impressed when the game of chess was demonstrated to him that he offered its inventor any reward he desired. After thinking for a while, the inventor said “Your Highness, please give me one grain of rice for the first square on the chessboard, two grains for the next square, four grains for the one after that, doubling the number of grains until the 64th square.” Stunned that the inventor would ask for such a puny reward, the King quickly agreed. A week later, the King’s treasurer informed His Highness that he would need to give the inventor 18 quintillion grains of rice, which is more than enough rice to cover the entire planet’s surface. “Holy Ganges, what have I done?” the King exclaimed, before having the inventor executed. 3  Veronica Guerrieri, Guido Lorenzoni, Ludwig Straub, and Iván Werning, “Macroeconomic Implications of COVID-19: Can Negative Supply Shocks Cause Demand Shortages?” NBER Working Paper No. 26918 (April 2020). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree Current MacroQuant Model Scores Still Stuck In The Tree Still Stuck In The Tree