BCA Indicators/Model

Highlights In this Weekly Report, we present our semi-annual chartbook of the BCA Central Bank Monitors. All of the Monitors are now below the zero line, indicating the need for continued easy global monetary policy to help mitigate the COVID-19 recession (Chart of the Week). Central bankers have already responded in an intense and rapid fashion to the crisis, delivering a series of rate cuts, increased asset purchase programs and measures to support bank lending to businesses suffering under quarantines. All of these vehicles have helped trigger a powerful rally in global bond markets that helped revitalize risk assets as well. After the coordinated global easing response of the past few months, the optimal policy choices now differ from country to country. This creates opportunities to benefit from country allocation decisions even in a world of puny government bond yields. The overall signal from our Central Bank Monitors is still bond bullish, however – at least over the next few months until there is evidence of how fast global growth is rebounding from the COVID-19 lockdowns. An Overview Of The BCA Central Bank Monitors Chart of the WeekUltra-Accommodative Monetary Policies Are Still Required Ultra-Accommodative Monetary Policies Are Still Required Ultra-Accommodative Monetary Policies Are Still Required Chart 2A Bond-Bullish Message From Our CB Monitors A Bond-Bullish Message From Our CB Monitors A Bond-Bullish Message From Our CB Monitors The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators designed to measure the cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future monetary policy decisions. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure the same things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, exchange rates, etc). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. Readings above the zero line for each Monitor indicate pressures for central banks to raise interest rates, and vice versa. Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the Developed Markets (Chart 2). All of the Monitors are indicating intense pressure to maintain very easy monetary policies in response to the global COVID-19 recession. While the bad economic and inflation news is largely discounted in the depressed level of bond yields worldwide, there are still opportunities to position country allocations within a government bond portfolio based on the message from our Monitors (overweighting the US, the UK and Canada, underweighting Germany and Japan). All of the Monitors are indicating intense pressure to maintain very easy monetary policies in response to the global COVID-19 recession.  In each BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a new chart for each country that we have not shown previously. In this edition, we show the components of the Monitors, grouped into those focusing on economic growth and inflation, plotted alongside our estimate of the appropriate level of central bank policy interest rates derived using a Taylor Rule. Fed Monitor: Policy Must Stay Accommodative Our Fed Monitor has collapsed below the zero line to recessionary levels (Chart 3A) in response to the coronavirus crisis. The Fed has already delivered a series of aggressive policy responses since March to help support an economy ravaged by the virus, including: interest rate cuts; quantitative easing (QE), including buying corporate and municipal debt; and setting up lending schemes for small businesses. The lockdown of almost the entire country has helped “flatten the curve” of the spread of COVID-19, but at a painful economic cost. The unemployment rate rose to 14.7% in April, the highest level since the Great Depression, and is expected to peak at levels above 20%. The result is unsurprising: a massive increase in spare economic capacity with a threat of deflation as headline CPI inflation plummeted to 0.3% in April (Chart 3B). Chart 3AUS: Fed Monitor US: Fed Monitor US: Fed Monitor Chart 3BUS Realized Inflation Flirting With 0% US Realized Inflation Flirting With 0% US Realized Inflation Flirting With 0% Within the components of our Fed Monitor, weakening growth has been the main driver of the decline (Chart 3C). Our Taylor Rule estimate suggests a deeply negative fed funds rate is “appropriate”, although the Fed is likely to pursue other avenues of easing like yield curve control before ever attempting a sub-0% policy rate. Chart 3CNegative Rates Are 'Required' In The US, But The Fed Has Other Options Negative Rates Are 'Required' In The US, But The Fed Has Other Options Negative Rates Are 'Required' In The US, But The Fed Has Other Options The fall in US Treasury yields over the past few months has been in line with the decline in our Fed Monitor (Chart 3D). While the US economy is slowly awakening from lockdowns, consumer and business confidence are likely to remain fragile given the numerous risks from a second wave of COVID-19, worsening US-China relations and, more recently, social unrest. Thus, we continue to recommend an overweight strategic allocation to the US within global government bond portfolios. The fall in US Treasury yields over the past few months has been in line with the decline in our Fed Monitor Chart 3DTreasury Yields Fully Reflect Pressure For More Fed Easing Treasury Yields Fully Reflect Pressure For More Fed Easing Treasury Yields Fully Reflect Pressure For More Fed Easing BoE Monitor: Negative Rates On The Horizon? Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor has collapsed to the lowest level in its history on the back of the severe COVID-19 recession (Chart 4A). The BoE already cut the Bank Rate to 0.1% in March, ramped up asset purchases, and introduced a Term Funding scheme to support business lending. Any additional easing from here might entail negative policy rates, which markets are already discounting. The UK unemployment rate is expected to peak around 8%, with the BoE projecting the economy to shrink by -14% this year, which would be the worst recession in modern history. Inflation has dropped sharply on the back of the dual collapse of energy prices and economic growth, ending a period of currency-fueled inflation increases (Chart 4B). Chart 4AUK: BoE Monitor UK: BoE Monitor UK: BoE Monitor Chart 4BUK Realized Inflation Is Slowing Rapidly UK Realized Inflation Is Slowing Rapidly UK Realized Inflation Is Slowing Rapidly The components of our BoE Monitor fully reflect the dire economic situation (Chart 4C), with weak growth – led by sharp falls in business confidence – driving the collapse of the Monitor more than falling inflation pressures. Our Taylor Rule estimate of the policy rate is not yet calling for negative rates, but that is because we are using the New York Fed’s estimate of r* as the neutral real rate, which is a relatively high 1.4% (by comparison, r* in the US is estimated to be 0.5%). Chart 4CNegative Rates Are Not Yet Required In The UK Negative Rates Are Not Yet Required In The UK Negative Rates Are Not Yet Required In The UK The sharp fall in the BoE Monitor suggests that Gilt yields will remain under downward pressure in the coming months (Chart 4D). New BoE Governor Andrew Bailey has stated that a move to negative rates is not imminent, but markets will continue to flirt with the notion of sub-0% interest rates until the economy and inflation stabilize. We maintain an overweight stance on UK Gilts. Chart 4DBoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields BoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields BoE Monitor Suggests Continued Downward Pressure On Gilt Yields ECB Monitor: Continued Monetary Support Is Needed Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor is now well below the zero line, signaling a strong need for easier monetary policy to fight the COVID-19 downturn (Chart 5A). The ECB has delivered multiple measures to ease monetary conditions, including a new €750bn bond-buying vehicle and liquidity operations to help banks maintain lending to European businesses.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ The recession has hit the region hard, with real GDP declining by -3.8% in Q1, the sharpest fall since records began in 1995. Unemployment rates have climbed higher, although to much lower levels than seen in the US thanks to more generous government labor support programs that have helped to limit layoffs. The sharp downturn has resulted in both a surge in spare economic capacity and plunge in headline inflation to 0.3% in April (Chart 5B). Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Euro Area: ECB Monitor Euro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BEurope Is On The Edge Of Deflation Europe Is On The Edge Of Deflation Europe Is On The Edge Of Deflation Within the individual components of our ECB Monitor, both weaker growth and near-0% inflation have both contributed to the Monitor’s decline (Chart 5C). Our Taylor Rule measure shows that the ECB’s current stance of having policy rates modestly below 0% is appropriate. Chart 5CThe ECB Needs To Keep Its Foot On The Monetary Accelerator The ECB Needs To Keep Its Foot On The Monetary Accelerator The ECB Needs To Keep Its Foot On The Monetary Accelerator Despite the ECB’s easing measures, and in contrast to the message from our ECB Monitor, the downward momentum in core European bond yields has been fading (Chart 5D). With the ECB reluctant to push policy rates deeper into negative territory, and with reliable cyclical indicators like the German ZEW and IFO surveys showing signs that euro area growth is starting to recover from the lockdowns, the case for even lower core European yields in the coming months is not strong. We maintain our recommended underweight stance on German and French government bonds. We maintain our recommended underweight stance on German and French government bonds. Chart 5DNo Pressure For Higher German Bund Yields No Pressure For Higher German Bund Yields No Pressure For Higher German Bund Yields BoJ Monitor: What More Can Be Done? Our Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has fallen further below zero, indicating easier policy is required (Chart 6A). The BoJ has already introduced additional easing measures in the past couple of months: extending forward guidance (inflation is projected to remain below the BoJ’s 2% target for the next three years), increasing asset purchases and enhancing loan programs to small and medium sized companies. New cases of COVID-19 have slowed sharply in Japan, prompting an end to the national state of emergency last week. Importantly, the virus did not hit Japan's labor market as severely as in other developed countries. The unemployment rate did reach a two-year high in April, but is still only 2.6% (Chart 6B). Fiscal stimulus and measures to protect job losses have played a major role in preventing a bigger spike in joblessness. Even with those measures, growth remains weak and realized inflation is heading back towards deflation. Chart 6AJapan: BoJ Monitor Japan: BoJ Monitor Japan: BoJ Monitor Chart 6BJapan Nearing Deflation Once Again Japan Nearing Deflation Once Again Japan Nearing Deflation Once Again Looking at the components of our BoJ Monitor, contracting growth, more than weakening inflation pressures, is the bigger driver of the fall in the Monitor below zero (Chart 6C). However, our Taylor Rule estimate does not suggest that the current level of the policy rate is out of line. Chart 6CBoJ Needs More Easing (Somehow) Until The Economy Revives BoJ Needs More Easing (Somehow) Until The Economy Revives BoJ Needs More Easing (Somehow) Until The Economy Revives The BoJ’s current combined policies of negative rates, QE and yield curve control are keeping JGB yields at near-0% levels. Those policies are also suppressing yield volatility and preventing an even bigger fall in JGB yields (with larger capital gains) as suggested by our BoJ Monitor (Chart 6D). We continue to recommend a maximum underweight in Japanese government bonds in a yield-starved world. Chart 6DJGB Yields Will Be Anchored For Some Time JGB Yields Will Be Anchored For Some Time JGB Yields Will Be Anchored For Some Time BoC Monitor: Deflationary Pressures Intensifying Our Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has collapsed into “easier policy required” territory, reaching levels last seen during the 2009 recession (Chart 7A). The central bank has already introduced several easing measures to help boost the virus-stricken economy, including cutting the Bank Rate to a mere 0.25% and starting a QE program to buy government bonds for the first time ever. Before the COVID-19 outbreak, some softening of the economy was already underway. Now, after the imposition of nationwide lockdowns to limit the spread of the virus, the unemployment rate has spiked to 13% - a level last seen in the early 1980s. The result is a massive deflationary output gap has opened up (Chart 7B), with realized headline CPI inflation printing at -0.2% in April. Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Canada: BoC Monitor Canada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BOutright Headline CPI Deflation In Canada Outright Headline CPI Deflation In Canada Outright Headline CPI Deflation In Canada The fall in our BoC Monitor has been driven by both collapsing economic growth and weakening inflation pressures (Chart 7C). Our Taylor Rule estimate suggests that one of new BoC Governor Tiff Macklem’s first policy decisions may need to be a move to negative interest rates. Macklem and other BoC officials have not played up the possibility of cutting rates below 0%. However, the fact that the BoC provided no economic growth forecasts in the most recent Monetary Policy Report highlights the extreme uncertainties surrounding the economic impact from COVID-19 – even with the Canadian government providing a large fiscal response to the pandemic. Chart 7CBoC Monitor Plunging Due To High Unemployment & Low Inflation BoC Monitor Plunging Due To High Unemployment & Low Inflation BoC Monitor Plunging Due To High Unemployment & Low Inflation We upgraded our recommended stance on Canadian government debt to overweight back in March, and the collapse of the BoC Monitor suggests continued downward pressure on Canadian yields (Chart 7D). Stay overweight. The collapse of the BoC Monitor suggests continued downward pressure on Canadian yields.  Chart 7DCanadian Yield Momentum In Line With The BoC Monitor Canadian Yield Momentum In Line With The BoC Monitor Canadian Yield Momentum In Line With The BoC Monitor RBA Monitor: Rate Cutting Cycle Is Done Due to a slump in export demand and a weakening housing market, our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) monitor has been consistently calling for rate cuts since April 2018 (Chart 8A). Australia began its easing cycle early, having delivered a total of 125bps of stimulus since June 2019, with the two most recent cuts coming directly in response to the COVID-19 crisis. As in other developed markets, the unemployment gap in Australia has widened dramatically, owing to job losses concentrated in tourism, entertainment, and dining out (Chart 8B). Although inflation briefly breached the low end of the RBA’s 2-3% target band in Q1, this will not be a lasting development. The RBA sees headline CPI deflating by -1% year-on-year in Q2/2020 and, even as far as 2022, only sees it growing at 1.5%. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Australia: RBA Monitor Australia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BInflation Will Remain Stuck Below RBA 2-3% Target Inflation Will Remain Stuck Below RBA 2-3% Target Inflation Will Remain Stuck Below RBA 2-3% Target Although both the growth and inflation components of our RBA Monitor are below zero, the former drove the most recent decline (Chart 8C) led by consumer confidence almost touching the 2008 lows. The RBA has already responded by cutting rates to near 0%, well below the Taylor Rule implied estimate, and initiating yield curve control with a cap on 3-year government bond yields at 0.25%. Chart 8CNo Pressure For The RBA To Go To Negative Rates No Pressure For The RBA To Go To Negative Rates No Pressure For The RBA To Go To Negative Rates Overall, Australian bond yields have accurately priced in the dovish signal from our RBA Monitor (Chart 8D). With COVID-19 relatively well contained in Australia, there is less pressure on the RBA to ease further. Governor Lowe has also ruled out negative rates, which will put a floor under yields. Owing to these factors, we confidently reiterate our neutral stance on Australian government debt within global fixed income portfolios. Australian bond yields have accurately priced in the dovish signal from our RBA Monitor. Chart 8DAustralian Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Move Much Lower Australian Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Move Much Lower Australian Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Move Much Lower RBNZ Monitor: Cause For Concern After a resurgence late last year, our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor has declined to a level slightly below zero (Chart 9A). The RBNZ responded to the pandemic by delivering a massive -75bps cut in March, but has since left the policy rate untouched, preferring to deliver further stimulus by doubling the size of its QE program. Forward guidance is signaling that the policy rate will remain at 0.25% until 2021, but the central bank has not ruled out negative rates in the future. ​​​​​​​Although the actual unemployment numbers do not yet capture the impact of the pandemic, both consensus and RBNZ forecasts call for a blowout in the unemployment gap (Chart 9B). The RBNZ expects the steady improvement in inflation seen up to Q1/2020 to be wiped out, with headline CPI projected to remain below the 1-3% target range until mid-2022. Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor New Zealand: RBNZ Monitor New Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BRealized NZ Inflation Was Drifting Higher, Pre-Virus Realized NZ Inflation Was Drifting Higher, Pre-Virus Realized NZ Inflation Was Drifting Higher, Pre-Virus Surprisingly, the inflation component of our RBNZ Monitor is actually calling for tighter monetary policy, owing to significant strength in the housing market (Chart 9C). However, this trend is likely to reverse - the RBNZ foresees a -9% decline in house prices over the remainder of 2020. Meanwhile, growth components such as consumer confidence and employment will remain depressed, holding down our RBNZ monitor. Chart 9CGrowth, Now Inflation, Has Driven The RBNZ Monitor Lower Growth, Now Inflation, Has Driven The RBNZ Monitor Lower Growth, Now Inflation, Has Driven The RBNZ Monitor Lower Overall, the momentum in New Zealand bond yields seems to have overshot the message from our RBNZ Monitor (Chart 9D). However, with so much uncertainty about business investment and cash flows from key sectors such as tourism and education, it is too early to bet on an improvement in yields. We therefore maintain a neutral recommendation on NZ sovereign debt. Chart 9DNZ Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Move Lower NZ Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Move Lower NZ Bond Yields Are Unlikely To Move Lower Riksbank Monitor: Worries For The Coronavirus Mavericks Amid the global pandemic, our Riksbank Monitor has collapsed to all-time lows (Chart 10A). In its April monetary policy decision, the Riksbank opted for continued asset purchases and liquidity measures to support bank lending to companies over a move to negative rates. One of the primary concerns for the Riksbank is headline CPI inflation, which fell into mild deflation (-0.4% year-over-year) in April on the back of lower energy prices and weaker domestic demand (Chart 10B). This could spill over into a lasting decline in long-term inflation expectations if the economy does not quickly improve. Chart 10ASweden: Riksbank Monitor Sweden: Riksbank Monitor Sweden: Riksbank Monitor Chart 10BSwedish Realized Inflation Back To 0% Swedish Realized Inflation Back To 0% Swedish Realized Inflation Back To 0% Both the growth and inflation components of our Riksbank Monitor are calling for further easing, with the growth component now at post-crisis lows (Chart 10C). The collapse on the growth side can be attributed to historic falls in retail confidence, the manufacturing PMI and employment while the inflation component remains depressed due to low headline numbers and inflation expectations. Chart 10CThe Riksbank Hates Negative Rates, But Could Still Need Them If The Economy Worsens The Riksbank Hates Negative Rates, But Could Still Need Them If The Economy Worsens The Riksbank Hates Negative Rates, But Could Still Need Them If The Economy Worsens The sharp downward move in our Riksbank Monitor suggests Swedish bond yields should remain under downward pressure in the coming months (Chart 10D). The key factor for yields will be the effect of the relatively lax measures implemented by Sweden to combat the pandemic. Sweden saw positive GDP growth in Q1/2020 due to fewer restrictions on the economy. However, infection and mortality rates are much higher in Sweden than in neighboring countries and, as a result, Denmark and Norway excluded Sweden from their open border agreement. Continued restrictions of the sort are bearish for growth – and bullish for bonds – in this trade-dependent economy. Chart 10DSwedish Bond Yields Will Remain Under Downward Pressure Swedish Bond Yields Will Remain Under Downward Pressure Swedish Bond Yields Will Remain Under Downward Pressure   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com ​​​​​​​Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: Collapse BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: Collapse ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of May 29, 2020.  The model has not made any significant change this month.  It has kept the same order for the top four overweight countries (Spain, Australia, Sweden, and the US) as well as the four large underweight countries (Japan, the UK, France, and Switzerland), as shown in Table 1.  Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark in May by 29 bps. The Level 1 model outperformed 2 bps because of the overweight in the US. The Level 2 model outperformed by 85 bps thanks to the overweight of Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands, as well as the underweight in the UK and Switzerland. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed its MSCI World benchmark by 180 bps, with 246 bps of outperformance from the Level 2 model, and 33 bps of outperformance from the Level 1 model. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA US Vs. Non US Model (Level 1) GAA US Vs. Non US Model (Level 1) GAA US Vs. Non US Model (Level 1)     Chart 3GAA Non US Model (Level 2) GAA Non US Model (Level 2) GAA Non US Model (Level 2) For more on historical performance, please refer to our website https://www.bcaresearch.com/site/trades/allocation_performance/latest/G…. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered as well when making overall recommendations.   GAA Equity Sector Selection Model Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of May 29, 2020. The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The model reversed its defensive stance implemented throughout March and April and is now tilted towards cyclical sectors. However, the semi-defensive tilt led the model to outperform its benchmark by 21 basis points during May. Year-to-date, the model has outperformed its benchmark by 88 basis points, and 86 basis points since inception. The model’s global growth proxy improved – mostly driven by EM currencies and commodity prices, and therefore turned positive on various cyclical sectors and reversed its defensive stance implemented in March. Global monetary easing and low rates should keep the liquidity component favouring a mixed bag of cyclical and defensive sectors. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors except Energy. However, multiple sectors are approaching expensive and cheap territories – mainly Info Tech (expensive), and Real Estate (cheap). The model awaits confirming momentum signals to change recommendations for that component. The model is now overweight five sectors in total, four cyclical sectors versus one defensive sectors. These are Information Technology, Consumer Discretionary, Communication Services, Materials and Health Care.  Table 3Overall Model Performance GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model”, dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Table 4Current Model Allocations GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com  

Highlights China is taking advantage of global chaos to solidify its sphere of influence – beginning with Hong Kong. The crisis is also motivating the European Union to link arms more tightly through a symbolic step toward fiscal solidarity and transfers. US, Chinese, and European stimulus measures are cyclically positive but near-term risks abound. Hiccups in stimulus rollout are to be expected – and China’s disappointing stimulus thus far may cause market turmoil before policymakers do what we expect and add greater oomph. US-China relations are breaking down as we outlined, as renminbi depreciation coincides with Trump approval depreciation. The risks of the UK failing to agree to a trade deal with the EU are higher than prior to COVID-19. Stay defensive tactically – the risk-on rally is not yet confirmed by major reflation indicators yet geopolitical risks are spiking. Feature Chart 1Will Geopolitics Stunt The Early Bull's Growth? Will Geopolitics Stunt The Early Bull's Growth? Will Geopolitics Stunt The Early Bull's Growth? After wavering at the 2,900 level, the S&P 500 broke above 3,000. As we go to press, it is holding the line, despite a surge in geopolitical risk emanating from the efforts of the Great Powers to consolidate their spheres of influence at the expense of globalization. Key cyclical indicators are on the verge of breaking out. Our “China Play Index,” which consists of the Australian dollar, Swedish equities, Brazilian equities, and iron ore prices, is reviving smartly. The copper-to-gold ratio, however, is not really confirming the rally (Chart 1). Nor are Asian currencies. We recommend a tactically defensive stance. We are not dogmatic, but are not convinced that the rally will overcome near-term risks. We expect explosive political and geopolitical events throughout the summer. Near-Term Geopolitical Risks To The Rally Our reasons for near-term caution are as follows: Global stimulus hiccups: China’s National People’s Congress over the weekend disappointed expectations on the size of economic stimulus. This is a short-term risk, we argue below, but nevertheless a risk. The US Congress may not pass stimulus until July 2 and the final law will fall short of the House bill of $3 trillion. The European “Next Generation EU” recovery fund is only 750 billion euros in size and may not be agreed until July, or even September if the financial market does not impose urgency. We elaborate below. Ultimately policymakers will keep doing “whatever it takes” but there will be hiccups first and they will trouble the market in the near term (Chart 2). Chart 2Stimulus Tsunami Will Peak This Summer Spheres Of Influence (GeoRisk Update) Spheres Of Influence (GeoRisk Update) Sino-American conflict: The “phase one” trade deal was never going to bring durable comfort to markets about US-China cooperation, and the outbreak of COVID-19 prompted our March 13 argument that US-China tensions would erupt sooner than we thought. So far the market is grinding higher despite the materialization of this risk. Mega-stimulus and the equity rally enable the US and China to clash. At some point escalation will upset the market. Domestic stimulus is substituting for a collapse in globalization and risk markets are cheering. But increased domestic support will enable political leaders to clash with each other and keep upping the ante. The higher the market goes the more willing President Trump will be to expend some ammunition on China and other political targets. But if you play with sticks, somebody always gets hurt. The market is betting that Trump is a typical US president, typically bashing China in an election year. We are arguing that he is atypical, that this is an atypical election year, and that China’s own ambition cannot be left out of the equation. Wild cards: Jokers, one-eyed jacks, suicidal kings, and aces are all wild in this deck. Emerging markets like Russia (Chart 3) – and rogue regimes like Iran – pose non-negligible risks of upsetting the global rebound this year. Chart 3ARussian Risk To Rise Further On Libya, US Tensions Russian Risk To Rise Further On Libya, US Tensions Russian Risk To Rise Further On Libya, US Tensions Chart 3BRussian Risk To Rise Further On Libya, US Tensions Russian Risk To Rise Further On Libya, US Tensions Russian Risk To Rise Further On Libya, US Tensions   Chart 4Equity Investors Wise To Erdogan's Mischief Equity Investors Wise To Erdogan's Mischief Equity Investors Wise To Erdogan's Mischief Investors cannot focus on tail risks all the time, but not all geopolitical risks are tail risks. This is particularly the case because of the US election, which heightens Washington’s willingness to retaliate to any provocations. Geopolitics in the Mediterranean are verifiably unstable, particularly in Libya where Russia looks to make a major intervention yet Turkey is also involved (Chart 4). This affects North African and European security. Iran is under historic stress and will attempt to undermine the Trump administration as it has no downside to Democratic victory in November. In a recent event we hosted with the CFA Institute in India and Asia Pacific, only 4% of participants highlighted Russia and 2% Iran as a significant source of political risk this year, while 93% highlighted the US and China. Clearly the US-China competition is the great game. But other risks are underrated, especially Russia. Stimulus hiccups this summer are likely to be overcome in the US, EU, and China, so perhaps the market will look through this risk while economies reopen and leading indicators inevitably improve. US-China tensions could remain bound within Trump’s desire to keep the stock market up during his election campaign and China’s desire not to incur Trump’s unmitigated wrath if he happens to be reelected. Russian, Iranian, and emerging market risks, if they materialize, may have merely localized and ephemeral market effects. However, Trump’s falling approval rating and executive decree to open the social media companies to litigation supports our thesis that he is not enslaved by the stock market. The market is expecting “the Art of the Deal” to lead to positive outcomes but that assumption is not as reliable in a recessionary context as it is in an economic boom. The Atlanta Fed’s second quarter real GDP growth estimate stands at -40.4%. Any state that provokes the US over the next five months risks a massive or unpredictable retaliation. China will ultimately bring stimulus to 15.5% of GDP. Deflation and unemployment are a massive constraint. We do not mention the well-known risks of weak consumer activity and business investment amid the pandemic, which itself is expected to revive in the fall with no guarantee of a vaccine by then. Bottom Line: In the near term, maintain safe haven trades such as long Japanese yen, US Treasuries, and defensive equity sectors. China Stimulus Hiccups Won’t Last, But Will Sow Doubt The most important question in China is the implication of the National People’s Congress with regard to the size of stimulus. After the stimulus blowout of 2015-16, Xi Jinping consolidated power and launched a deleveraging campaign. His administration is determined to keep a lid on systemic risks, especially the money and credit bubble. Chart 5China's Stimulus Faces Doubts But Will Prove Huge In The End China's Stimulus Faces Doubts But Will Prove Huge In The End China's Stimulus Faces Doubts But Will Prove Huge In The End Beijing’s targets for central and local government spending disappointed market observers. In Chart 2 above, we revised Beijing’s fiscal stimulus from 11% of GDP to 4.3% of GDP as a result of lower-than-expected targets for local government special bonds and central government special treasury bonds, as well as a corrected calculation of the fiscal relief for small and-medium-sized enterprises. This 4.3% understates the real size of China’s stimulus because it includes only fiscal elements. Since the Communist Party and state bureaucracy control the banks and many large enterprises, one must also include credit growth – it is a quasi-fiscal factor. Total social financing (total private credit) is usually the biggest element of China’s periodic bouts of stimulus. While Chinese authorities showed restraint in their fiscal measures, they announced that credit growth would “significantly” exceed nominal GDP growth, which has collapsed due to the virus lockdowns. Our Emerging Markets Strategy estimates that credit growth will accelerate to 14% this year, making for an 11.2% of GDP increase in total credit, and a combined fiscal and credit impulse that will reach 15.5% of GDP (Chart 5). The dramatic global economic shock and the hit to China’s labor market ensure that additional stimulus will be applied as needed to plug the output gap. Soaring unemployment is a fundamental risk to social stability and hence to single-party rule. This means that the fiscal impulse will in the end likely exceed 4.3% as new measures are rolled out later this year. It also means that credit growth will surprise to the upside, as the regime loosens the reins on shadow banks as well as state-controlled lenders. Nevertheless, accepting our Emerging Market Strategy’s base case of 15.5% of GDP fiscal and credit impulse, we would note that China’s economy is much larger as a share of the global economy today than it was in previous rounds of stimulus. Thus while the stimulus may be smaller than that in 2008 as a proportion of China’s economy, it is larger as a proportion of the world’s (Table 1). China-linked asset prices, such as industrial metals, will see rising demand over time. Table 1China Fiscal+Credit Impulse Will Be Big Relative To World Spheres Of Influence (GeoRisk Update) Spheres Of Influence (GeoRisk Update) The Xi administration’s preference is not to overstimulate and exacerbate its problems of imbalanced growth, falling productivity, and excessive indebtedness. But its constraint is deflation, unemployment, and social instability. Insufficiently loose policy in the midst of a very deep global recession could prove to be the biggest policy mistake of all time. To refuse to loosen as needed, or to re-tighten policy too soon, would be to make a cruel joke out of the new policy slogan, “the Six Stabilities and Six Guarantees” and jeopardize Xi Jinping’s ability to reconsolidate power ahead of the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. Rather the constraint will force policymakers to alter any hawkish preferences if growth looks to relapse. Bottom Line: Doubts about the sufficiency of China’s fiscal and monetary stimulus pose a near-term risk to global risk assets since investors face disappointing stimulus promises on the surface, combined with lack of certainty about Beijing’s willingness to increase stimulus going forward. We are confident that Beijing will ultimately do whatever it takes to stabilize employment and try to ensure social stability. But this implies near-term challenges and possibly a market riot prior to resolution. Before then, many market participants, including in China, will believe that the Xi Jinping administration will be hawkish and resistant to re-leveraging. China’s Sphere Of Influence Global geopolitical risk stems from the Xi Jinping regime at least as much as from the Donald Trump regime, as we have long pointed out. The scenario unfolding as we go to press is precisely the one we outlined back in March in which Beijing depreciates its currency to ease its economic woes while President Trump’s approval rating falls due to his own woes, prompting him to retaliate. The CNY-USD exchange rate is largely pricing out the phase one trade deal, which is marked by the peak in renminbi strength in Chart 6. Chart 6Phase One Trade Deal Priced Out Of Renminbi Already Phase One Trade Deal Priced Out Of Renminbi Already Phase One Trade Deal Priced Out Of Renminbi Already Chart 7China's Warning To Trump Could Scrap Trade Deal China's Warning To Trump Could Scrap Trade Deal China's Warning To Trump Could Scrap Trade Deal This depreciation is not merely the effect of market moves – though weakness in global and Asian trade and manufacturing certainly reinforce it. The People’s Bank of China’s fixing rate has been guiding the currency to its lowest point since 2008 amid the spike in US-China tensions over the past month (Chart 7). China says it will adhere to the phase one deal as long as it is mutual. It is buying more soybeans, cotton, pork, and beef from the United States relative to last year. Demand has collapsed. Unless China decides to dictate purchases as a subsidy to keep the agreement alive, its purchases will fall short of the huge expansion envisioned in the deal. US actions could nullify the deal anyway. President Trump and his Economic Director Larry Kudlow have both suggested that the administration no longer cares about maintaining the deal. China was fast becoming unpopular in the US and this trend has skyrocketed as a result of COVID-19. China’s other notable decision at the National People’s Congress was to state that it would impose a new national security law on Hong Kong SAR, after the autonomous financial center’s long reluctance to do so. Beijing has sought greater direct control of the city since early in Xi’s term, in contravention of the promise of 50 years of substantial autonomy enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. Beijing’s action comes after Hong Kong’s widespread civil unrest last year and ahead of the city’s Legislative Council elections in September, which will likely become a major geopolitical flashpoint. The United States is retaliating by removing Hong Kong’s designation as an autonomous region. This entails higher tariffs, tougher export controls, stricter visa requirements, and likely sanctions directed at mainland entities that will enforce the national security law in various ways, including eventually some Chinese banks. The US also accelerated sanctions against China for its civil rights abuses in Xinjiang – sanctions that target tech and security companies – and is moving forward with a bill to threaten Chinese companies that hold American Depository Receipts (ADRs) with delisting from American stock exchanges if they do not meet the same auditing requirements as other foreign companies. This potentially affects $1.8 trillion in market capitalization over a 3-4 year period. China’s power grab in Hong Kong initiates a market-negative Sino-American dynamic that will last all year. It cannot be assumed that Trump will accept Beijing’s implicit offer of swapping phase one trade deal implementation for China’s historic encroachment on Hong Kong’s autonomy. The imposition of legislative dependency on Hong Kong should not have been a surprise to investors given recent trends, but it was, as Hong Kong equities fell by 6% at first blush. There is more downside, judging by our China GeoRisk Indicator, which is in a clear uptrend for all of these reasons and correlates reasonably well with the Hang Seng index (Chart 8). Chart 8Hong Kong Equities Face More Downside From Geopolitics Hong Kong Equities Face More Downside From Geopolitics Hong Kong Equities Face More Downside From Geopolitics While the US will retaliate over Hong Kong, the question for global investors is whether the conflict spills over into the rest of China’s periphery. This would highlight the systemic nature of the geopolitical risk and make it harder for the market to swallow the new cold war. Our Taiwan Strait GeoRisk Indicator (Chart 9) is pricing zero political risk despite the clear risk that Beijing will eventually resort to economic sanctions to penalize the mainland-skeptic government there; that the US will seek to shore up the diplomatic and defense relationship in significant ways in what may be the final five months of the Trump administration; and that Taiwan may seek to draw the US into granting greater economic and security assurances. Chart 9Taiwan Equities Pricing ZERO Geopolitical Risk ... Huge Mispricing Taiwan Equities Pricing ZERO Geopolitical Risk ... Huge Mispricing Taiwan Equities Pricing ZERO Geopolitical Risk ... Huge Mispricing Our Korea GeoRisk Indicator (Chart 10) has also fallen drastically. This risk indicator deviates from Korean equities frequently due to North Korean risks, which equity investors tend (usually correctly) to ignore. This year is different, however, because Kim Jong Un’s decision whether to give Trump a diplomatic win, or frustrate him with the test of a nuclear device or intercontinental ballistic missile, actually has a bearing on Trump’s election odds and the pace of US-China escalation. If Kim humiliates Trump then we expect Trump to make a major show of force in the region that would draw China into a strategic standoff. Chart 10North Korea Is Relevant In 2020 Due To Trump North Korea Is Relevant In 2020 Due To Trump North Korea Is Relevant In 2020 Due To Trump China is attempting to solidify its sphere of influence, first in Hong Kong but later in Taiwan and the Korean peninsula. The United States is pushing back and the US election cycle combined with massive stimulus means that push will come to shove. Bottom Line: Investors should steer clear of Chinese, Taiwanese, and Korean currencies and risk assets in the near term. We recommend playing the cyclical China recovery via Korean equities over the long run. The European Sphere Of Influence The European Union is also attempting to strengthen and expand its sphere of influence – namely with steps in the direction of a fiscal union. Our GeoRisk Indicators are generally flagging a huge drop in political risk for Germany, France, Italy, and Spain (Charts 11A & 11B). The reason is that the economies have collapsed yet the equity market has bounded back on ECB quantitative easing and huge promises of fiscal support. In the coming months these risk indicators will rise even as economies reopen because the debate over fiscal and monetary policies is heating up. Our base case is that both the debate over EU recovery funds and the German constitutional court’s objections to QE will resolve in dovish compromises. Chart 11AEurope’s Not-Quite Hamiltonian Moment Europe's Not-Quite Hamiltonian Moment Europe's Not-Quite Hamiltonian Moment Chart 11BEurope’s Not-Quite Hamiltonian Moment Europe's Not-Quite Hamiltonian Moment Europe's Not-Quite Hamiltonian Moment At issue on the fiscal front is the EU Commission’s “Next Generation EU” recovery fund. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is offering to create a 750 billion euro relief fund (500 billion in grants, 250 billion in loans). The decision is contentious because it would entail the EU Commission issuing bonds – essentially joint bonds among the EU states – to raise funds that would then be distributed through the EU Commission seven-year budget (2021-7). Joint issuance would be a symbolic step toward greater solidarity. This proposal began with an agreement between French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to launch the 500 billion in grants. Merkel signaled earlier this year that she was prepared to accept joint bond issuance focused on the immediate crisis. When more fiscally hawkish or euroskeptic states objected that loans should be used instead of grants, von der Leyen simply added their proposal to the total, despite the fact that the ECB and European Stability Mechanism (ESM) already offer emergency loans to help states through the global crisis. The proposal marks a victory of the fiscally dovish Mediterranean states (once called “Club Med”) over the frugal Germans, with Macron prevailing on Merkel to foist yet another major compromise onto her conservative German power base in the name of European integration and solidarity before she exits the chancellorship in 2021. But it is not as if German elites like Merkel and von der Leyen are running amok: German public opinion is Europhile and supportive of bolder actions to share burdens, save the union, and shore up the continental economy. The market is not pricing any political risk in Taiwan despite clear dangers. Stay short Taiwanese equities. The recovery fund itself is limited in size, relative to overall stimulus actions thus far. But it would plug an important gap for states like Italy and Spain, which are constrained by large public debt loads and have not provided enough stimulus as yet. The “Frugal Four,” the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, and Denmark, are leading the opposition to the use of grants rather than loans and any effort to establish a track leading to European fiscal union. But they are also willing to negotiate. Estonia and other nations are also objecting, with the eastern Europeans seeking to ensure that southern Europe does not take the lion’s share of the funds, while the core European states will use the funds to pressure populist and euroskeptic eastern states that have defied the European Court of Justice and other institutions (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe: Distribution Of ‘NextGen EU’ Fund Spheres Of Influence (GeoRisk Update) Spheres Of Influence (GeoRisk Update) A final decision may not be settled by the time of a special summit in July but some compromise should be expected by the fall or (latest) end of year. The proposal would do the very thing that its opponents resist: pave the way toward jointly issued bonds in future that do not have a time limit or a single purpose (today’s sole purpose being pandemic relief). Hence the negotiations will be intense and it will likely require a return of financial instability to bring them to a conclusion. The global financial crisis and its aftermath provoked a higher degree of integration among the EU member states despite the tendency of the mainstream media to assume that the dissonance between monetary and fiscal policy would create an unbridgeable rupture. COVID-19 is now supporting this pattern of Brussels not letting a good crisis go to waste. Chart 13Europe Fends Off Latest Doubts About Solidarity Europe Fends Off Latest Doubts About Solidarity Europe Fends Off Latest Doubts About Solidarity The reason is that the EU is a geopolitical project. As Russia revived, the US began to act unilaterally and unpredictably, and China emerged as a global heavyweight, European powers were forced to huddle together ever more tightly to create economies of scale and improve their security against various external and unconventional threats. Influential German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz has compared the new recovery fund to the work of American founding father Alexander Hamilton in mutualizing the early American states’ war debt so as to create a tighter fiscal union among the states. For that very reason the more Euroskeptic member states oppose the proposal – long rejecting the idea of a “United States of Europe.” Today’s proposals are more symbolic, less substantial, than Hamilton’s famous Compromise of 1790. Nevertheless we would not underrate them as they highlight the way the European states continually turn crisis moments that worry the markets about European break-up into new opportunities to combine more closely. As such it is fitting that the European break-up risk premium has fallen, signifying a drop in peripheral bond spreads (Chart 13). The battle over debt mutualization is not over yet so spreads could widen again, but the trend will be down as the bloc develops new tools to combat the latest crisis. The United Kingdom obviously marks a major exception to this reinforcement of the European sphere of influence. The Brits are historically and geopolitically opposed to a unified continental political power. Having decided to leave, they lack the ability to obstruct from within. But they are also not necessarily more likely to yield in their trade negotiations. British political risks are understandably low because Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party won a strong mandate in December and technically do not have to face voters again until 2024. The major limitation on a “no trade deal” outcome in talks with Brussels was a recession – yet that has already occurred. London could ultimately bite the bullet and accept that outcome if the trade talks turn acrimonious. The GBP/EUR is not pricing a full “no deal” exit. Stimulus and economic recovery suggest that it is a good time to go long sterling but we will pass on this trade in the short run due to resilient dollar strength and the reduced barrier to exiting without a trade deal (Charts 14A & 14B). Chart 14ABrexit Trade Talks Not Globally Relevant Brexit Trade Talks Not Globally Relevant Brexit Trade Talks Not Globally Relevant Chart 14BBrexit Trade Talks Not Globally Relevant Brexit Trade Talks Not Globally Relevant Brexit Trade Talks Not Globally Relevant Bottom Line: We do not yet recommend reinstituting our long EUR/USD trade, which we initiated late last year as part of our annual forecast. The COVID-19 crisis has created such a spike in geopolitical and political risk that we expect the US dollar to remain surprisingly strong throughout the coming months and for US equities to outperform global equities beyond expectation. Nevertheless we will look to reinitiate this long-term trade at an appropriate time, as it fits squarely with our “European Integration” theme since 2012. Investment Takeaways Our contention that “geopolitics is the next shoe to drop” has materialized. This has negative near-term implications for global risk assets. However, thus far, market positives have outweighed negatives for global investors faced with the reopening of economies and wartime-magnitude fiscal and monetary stimulus. Buying risky assets makes sense for investors with a long-term investment horizon – and we recommend cyclical plays like commodities, corporate bonds, infrastructure stocks, and defense stocks in our strategic portfolio. We also recognize that if key cyclical and reflation indicators break out from here, then a cyclical bull market could take shape. Yet our analytical framework reveals that recession and mega-stimulus have diminished the financial and economic constraints that would normally deter geopolitical actors from ambitious actions on the international stage. Most notably, the US election dynamic has turned upside-down. President Trump is the underdog and will need to develop a reelection bid that does not hinge on the economy. Doubling down on “America First” foreign policy and trade policy makes the most sense and the ramifications are negative for the markets over the next five months. This is the key dynamic that makes US-China, US-North Korea, US-Russia, and US-Iran tensions more market-relevant than they would otherwise be. It also will dampen an otherwise positive story for the euro, in the short run.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Section II: Appendix : GeoRisk Indicator China: China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK: UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France: France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

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

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

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 The collapse in oil prices supercharges the geopolitical risks stemming from the global pandemic and recession. Low oil prices should discourage petro-states from waging war, but Iran may be an important exception. Russian instability is one of the most important secular geopolitical consequences of this year’s crisis. President Trump’s precarious status this election year raises the possibility of provocations or reactions on his part. Europe faces instability on its eastern and southern borders in coming years, but integration rather than breakup is the response. Over a strategic time frame, go long AAA-rated municipal bonds, cyber security stocks, infrastructure stocks, and China reflation plays. Feature Chart 1Someone Took Physical Delivery! Someone Took Physical Delivery! Someone Took Physical Delivery! Oil markets melted this week. Oil volatility measured by the Crude Oil ETF Volatility Index surpassed 300% as WTI futures for May 2020 delivery fell into a black hole, bottoming at -$40.40 per barrel (Chart 1). Our own long Brent trade, initiated on 27 March 2020 at $24.92 per barrel, is down 17.9% as we go to press. Strategically we are putting cash to work acquiring risk assets and we remain long Brent. The forward curve implies that prices will rise to $35 and $31 per barrel for Brent and WTI by April 2021. We initiated this trade because we assessed that: The US and EU would gradually reopen their economies (they are doing so). Oil production would be destroyed (more on this below). Russia and Saudi Arabia would agree to production cuts (they did). Monetary and fiscal stimulus would take effect (the tsunami of stimulus is still growing). Global demand would start the long process of recovery (no turn yet, unknown timing). On a shorter time horizon, we are defensively positioned but things are starting to look up on COVID-19 – New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has released results of a study showing that 15% of New Yorkers have antibodies, implying a death rate of only 0.5%. The US dollar and global policy uncertainty may be peaking as we go to press (Chart 2). However, second-order effects still pose risks that keep us wary. Chart 2Dollar And Policy Uncertainty Roaring Dollar And Policy Uncertainty Roaring Dollar And Policy Uncertainty Roaring Geopolitics is the “next shoe to drop” – and it is already dropping. A host of risks are flying under the radar as the world focuses on the virus. Taken alone, not every risk warrants a risk-off positioning. But combined, these risks reveal extreme global uncertainty which does warrant a risk-off position in the near term. This week’s threats between the US and Iran, in particular, show that the political and geopolitical fallout from COVID-19 begins now, it will not “wait” until the pandemic crisis subsides. In this report we focus on the risks from oil-producing economies, but we first we update our fiscal stimulus tally. Stimulus Tsunami Chart 3Stimulus Tsunami Still Building Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Policymakers responded to COVID-19 by doing “whatever it takes” to prop up demand (Chart 3). Please see the Appendix for our latest update of our global fiscal stimulus table. The latest fiscal and monetary measures show that countries are still adding stimulus – i.e. there is not yet a substantial shift away from providing stimulus: China has increased its measures to a total of 10% of GDP for the year so far, according to BCA Research China Investment Strategy. This includes a general increase in credit growth, a big increase in government spending (2% of GDP), a bank re-lending scheme (1.5% of GDP), an increase in general purpose local government bonds (2% of GDP), plus special purpose bonds (4% of GDP) and other measures. On the political front, the government has rolled out a new slogan, “the Six Stabilities and the Six Guarantees,” and President Xi Jinping said on an inspection tour to Shaanxi that the state will increase investments to ensure that employment is stabilized. This is the maximum reflationary signal from China that we have long expected. The US agreed to a $484 billion “fourth phase” stimulus package, bringing its total to 13% of GDP. President Trump is already pushing for a fifth phase involving bailouts of state and local governments and infrastructure, which we fully expect to take place even if it takes a bit longer than packages that have been passed so far this year. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has opened the way for the EU to issue Eurobonds, in keeping with our expectations. Germany is spending 12% of GDP in total – which can go much higher depending on how many corporate loans are tapped – while Italy is increasing its stimulus to 3% of GDP. As deficits rise to astronomical sums, and economies gradually reopen, will legislatures balk at passing new stimulus? Yes, eventually. Financial markets will have to put more pressure on policymakers to get them to pass more stimulus. This can lead to volatility. In the US the pandemic is coinciding with “peak polarization” over the 2020 election. Lack of coordination between federal and state governments is increasing uncertainty. Currently disputes center on the timing of economic reopening and the provisioning bailout funds for state and local governments. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is threatening to deny bailouts for American states with large, unfunded public pension benefits (Chart 4A). He is insisting that the Senate “push the pause button” on coronavirus relief measures; specifically that nothing new be passed until the Senate convenes in Washington on May 4. He may then lead a charge in the Republican Senate to try to require structural reforms from states in exchange for bailouts. Estimates of the total state budget shortfall due to the crisis stand at $500 billion over the next three years, which is almost certainly an understatement (Chart 4B). Chart 4AUS States Have Unfunded Liabilities Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Chart 4BUS States Face Funding Shortfalls Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Could a local government or state declare bankruptcy? Not anytime soon. Technically there is no provision for states to declare bankruptcy. A constitutional challenge to such a declaration would go to the Supreme Court. One commonly cited precedent, Arkansas in 1933, ended up with a federal bailout.1 A unilateral declaration could conceivably become a kind of “Lehman moment” in the public sector, but state governors will ask their legislatures to provide more fiscal flexibility and will seek bailouts from the federal government first. The Federal Reserve is already committed to buying state and local bonds and can expand these purchases to keep interest rates low. Washington would be forced to provide at least short-term funding if state workers started getting fired in the midst of the crisis because of straightened state finances – another $500 billion for the states is entirely feasible in today’s climate. Constraints will prevail on the GOP Senate to provide state bailout funds. This conflict over state finances could have a negative impact on US equities in the near term, but it is largely a bluff – McConnell will lose this battle. The fundamental dynamic in Washington is that of populism combined with a pandemic that neutralizes arguments about moral hazard. Big-spending Democrats in the House of Representatives control the purse strings while big-spending President Trump faces an election. Senate Republicans are cornered on all sides – and their fate is tied to the President’s – so they will eventually capitulate. Bottom Line: The global fiscal and monetary policy tsunami is still building. But there are plenty of chances for near-term debacles. Over the long run the gargantuan stimulus is the signal while the rest is noise. Over the long run we expect the reflationary efforts to prevail and therefore we are long Treasury inflation-protected securities and US investment grade corporate bonds. We recommend going strategically long AAA-rated US municipal bonds relative to 10-year Treasuries. Petro-State Meltdown Since March we have highlighted that the collapse in oil prices will destabilize oil producers above and beyond the pandemic and recession. This leaves Iran in danger, but even threatens the stability of great powers like Russia. Normally there is something of a correlation between the global oil price and the willingness of petro-states to engage in war (Chart 5). Chart 5Petro-States Cease Fire When Oil Drops Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) When prices fall, revenues dry up and governments have to prioritize domestic stability. This tends to defer inter-state conflict. We can loosely corroborate this evidence by showing that global defense stocks tend to be correlated with oil prices (Chart 6). Global growth is the obvious driver of both of these indicators. But states whose budgets are closely tied to the commodity cycle are the most likely to cut defense spending. Chart 6Global Growth Drives Oil And Guns Global Growth Drives Oil And Guns Global Growth Drives Oil And Guns Russia is case in point. Revenues from Rostec, one of Russia’s largest arms firms, rise and fall with the Urals crude oil price (Chart 7). The Russians launch into foreign adventures during oil bull markets, when state coffers are flush with cash. They have an uncanny way of calling the top of the cycle by invading countries (Chart 8). Chart 7Oil Correlates With Russian Arms Sales Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Chart 8Russian Invasions Call Peak In Oil Bull Markets Russian Invasions Call Peak In Oil Bull Markets Russian Invasions Call Peak In Oil Bull Markets Chart 9Turkish Political Risk On The Rise Turkish Political Risk On The Rise Turkish Political Risk On The Rise In the current oil rout, there is already some evidence of hostilities dying down in this way. For instance, after years of dogged fighting in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is finally declaring a ceasefire there. Turkey, which benefits from low oil prices, has temporarily gotten the upper hand in Libya vis-à-vis Khalifa Haftar and the Libyan National Army, which depends on oil revenues and backing from petro-states like Russia and the GCC. Of course, Turkey’s deepening involvement in foreign conflicts is evidence of populism at home so it does not bode well for the lira or Turkish assets (Chart 9). But it does highlight the impact of weak oil on petro-players such as Haftar. However, the tendency of petro-states to cease fire amid low prices is merely a rule of thumb, not a law of physics. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Already we are seeing that Iran is defying this dynamic by engaging in provocative saber-rattling with the United States. Iran And Iraq The US and Iran are rattling sabers again. One would think that Iran, deep in the throes of recession and COVID-19, would eschew a conflict with the US at a time when a vulnerable and anti-Iranian US president is only seven months away from an election. Chart 10US Maximum Pressure On Iran US Maximum Pressure On Iran US Maximum Pressure On Iran Iran has survived nearly two years of “maximum pressure” from President Trump (Chart 10), and previous US sanction regimes, and has a fair chance of seeing the Democrats retake Washington. The Democrats would restart negotiations to restore the 2015 nuclear deal, which was favorable to Iran. Therefore risking air strikes from President Trump is counterproductive and potentially disastrous. Yet this logic only holds if the Iranian regime is capable of sustaining the pain of a pandemic and global recession on top of its already collapsing economy. Iran’s ability to circumvent sanctions to acquire funds depended on the economy outside of Iran doing fine. Now Iran’s illicit funds are drying up. This could lead to a pullback in funding for militant proxies across the region as Iran cuts costs. But it also removes the constraint on Iran taking bolder actions. If the economy is collapsing anyway then Iran can take bigger risks. Furthermore if Iran is teetering, there may be an incentive to initiate foreign conflicts to refocus domestic angst. This could be done without crossing Trump’s red lines by attacking Iraq or Saudi Arabia. With weak oil demand, Iran’s leverage declines. But a major attack would reduce oil production and accelerate the global supply-demand rebalance. Iran’s attack on the Saudi Abqaiq refinery last September took six million barrels per day offline briefly, but it was clearly not intended to shut down that production permanently. Threats against shipping in the Persian Gulf bring about 14 million barrels per day into jeopardy (Chart 11). Chart 11Closing Hormuz Would Be The Biggest Oil Shock Ever Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Iran-backed militias in Iraq have continued to attack American assets and have provoked American air strikes over the past month, despite the near-war scenario that erupted just before COVID. Iranian ships have harassed US naval ships in recent days. President Trump has ordered the navy to destroy ships that threaten it; Iranian commander has warned that Iran will sink US warships that threaten its ships in the Gulf. There is a 20% chance of armed hostilities between the US and Iran. Why would Iran be willing to confront the United States? First, Iran rightly believes that the US is war-weary and that Trump is committed to withdrawing from the Middle East. But this could prompt a fateful mistake. The equation changes if the US public is incensed and Trump’s election campaign could benefit from conflict. Chart 12Youth Pose Stability Risk To Iran Youth Pose Stability Risk To Iran Youth Pose Stability Risk To Iran Second, the US is never going to engage in a ground invasion of Iran. Airstrikes would not easily dislodge the regime. They could have the opposite effect and convert an entire generation of young, modernizing Iranians into battle-hardened supporters of the Islamic revolution (Chart 12). This is a dire calculation that the Iranian leaders would only make if they believed their regime was about to collapse. But they are quite possibly the closest to collapse that they have been since the 1980s and nobody knows where their pain threshold lies. They are especially vulnerable as the regime approaches the uncharted succession of Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei. Since early 2018 we have argued that there is a 20% chance of armed hostilities between the US and Iran. We upgraded this to 40% in June 2019 and downgraded it back to 20% after the Iranians shied from direct conflict this January. Our position remains the same 20%. This is still a major understated risk at a time when the global focus is entirely elsewhere. It will persist into 2021 if Trump is reelected. If the Democrats win the US election, this war risk will abate. The Iranians will play hard to get but they are politically prohibited from pursuing confrontation with the US when a 2015-type deal is available. This would open up the possibility for greater oil supply to be unlocked in the future, but sanctions are not likely to be lifted till 2022 at earliest. Russia Russia may not be on the verge of invading anyone, but it is internally vulnerable and fully capable of striking out against foreign opponents. Cyberattacks, election interference, or disinformation campaigns would sow confusion or heighten tensions among the great powers. The Russian state is suffering a triple whammy of pandemic, recession, and oil collapse. President Vladimir Putin’s approval rating has fallen this year so far, whereas other leaders in the western world have all seen polling bounces (even President Trump, slightly) (Chart 13). Putin postponed a referendum designed to keep him in office through 2036 due to the COVID crisis. In other words, the pandemic has already disrupted his carefully laid succession plans. While Putin can bypass a referendum, he would have been better off in the long run with the public mandate. Generally it is Putin’s administration, not his personal popularity, that is at risk, but the looming impact on Russian health and livelihoods puts both in jeopardy (Chart 14) and requires larger fiscal outlays to try to stabilize approval (Chart 15). Chart 13Putin Saw No COVID Popularity Bump Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Chart 14Russian Regime Faces Political Discontent Russian Regime Faces Political Discontent Russian Regime Faces Political Discontent Moreover, regardless of popular opinion, Putin is likely to settle scores with the oligarchs. The fateful decision to clash with the Saudis in March, which led to the oil collapse, will fall on Igor Sechin, Chief Executive of Rosneft, and his faction. An extensive political purge may well ensue that would jeopardize domestic stability (Chart 16). Chart 15Russia To Focus On Domestic Stability Russia To Focus On Domestic Stability Russia To Focus On Domestic Stability Chart 16Russian Political Risk Will Rise Russian Political Risk Will Rise Russian Political Risk Will Rise Russian tensions with the US will rise over the US election in November. The Democrats would seek to make Russia pay for interfering in US politics to help President Trump win in 2016. But even President Trump may no longer be a reliable “ally” of Putin given that Putin’s oil tactics have bankrupted the US shale industry during Trump’s reelection campaign. The American and Russian air forces are currently sparring in the air space over Syria and the Mediterranean. The US has also warned against a malign actor threatening to hack the health care system of the Czech Republic, which could be Russia or another actor like North Korea or Iran. These issues have taken place off the radar due to the coronavirus but they are no less real for that. Venezuela We have predicted Venezuela’s regime change for several years but the oil meltdown, pandemic, and insufficient Russian and Chinese support should put the final nail in the regime’s coffin. Hugo Chavez’s rise to power, the last “regime change,” occurred as oil prices bottomed in 1998. Historically the Venezuelan armed forces have frequently overthrown civilian authorities, but in several cases not until oil prices recovered (Chart 17). Chart 17Venezuelan Coups Follow Oil Rebounds Venezuelan Coups Follow Oil Rebounds Venezuelan Coups Follow Oil Rebounds The US decision to designate Nicolas Maduro as a “narco-terrorist,” to deploy greater naval and coast guard assets around Venezuela, to reassert the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary, and to pull Chevron from the country all suggest that Washington is preparing for regime change. Such a change may or may not involve any American orchestration. Venezuela is an easy punching-bag for President Trump if he seeks to “wag the dog” ahead of the election. Venezuela would be a strategic prize and yet it cannot hurt the US economy or financial markets substantially, giving limited downside to President Trump if he pursues such a strategy. Obviously any conflict with Venezuela this year is far less relevant to global investors than one with Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia. Regime change would be positive for oil supply and negative for prices over the long run. But that is a story for the next cycle of energy development, as it would take years for government and oil industry change in Venezuela to increase production. The US election cycle is a critical aggravating factor for all of these petro-state risks. Shale producers are going bankrupt, putting pressure on the economy and some swing states. The risk of a conflict arises not only from Trump playing “wag the dog” after the crisis abates, but also from other states provoking the president, causing him to react or overreact. The “Other Guys” Oil producers outside the US, Canada, gulf OPEC, and Russia – the “other guys” – are extremely vulnerable to this year’s global crisis and price collapse. Comprising half of global production, they were already seeing production declines and a falling global market share over the past decade when they should have benefited from a global economic expansion. They never recovered from the 2014-15 oil plunge and market share war (Chart 18). Angola (1.4 million barrels per day), Algeria (one million barrels per day), and Nigeria (1.8 million barrels per day) are relatively sizable producers whose domestic stability is in question in the coming years as they cut budgets and deplete limited forex reserves to adjust to the lower oil price. This means fewer fiscal resources to keep political and regional factions cooperating and provide basic services. Algeria is particularly vulnerable. President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who ruled as a strongman from 1999, was forced out last year, leaving a power vacuum that persists under Prime Minister Abdelaziz Djerad, in the wake of the low-participation elections in December. An active popular protest movement, Hirak, already exists and is under police suppression. Unemployment is high, especially among the youth. Neighboring Libya is in the midst of a war and extremist militants within Libya and North Africa would like to expand their range of operations in a destabilized Algeria. Instability would send immigrants north to Europe. Oil production will be reduced involuntarily as well as voluntarily this year due to regime failures. Brazil is not facing the risk of state failure like Algeria, but it is facing a deteriorating domestic political outlook (Chart 19). President Jair Bolsonaro’s popularity was already low relative to most previous presidents before COVID. His narrow base in the Chamber of Deputies got narrower when he abandoned his political party. He has defied the pandemic, refused to endorse social distancing or lockdown orders by local governments, and fired his Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta. Chart 18Petro-States: 'Other Guys' Face Instability Petro-States: 'Other Guys' Face Instability Petro-States: 'Other Guys' Face Instability Chart 19Brazilian Political Risk Rising Again Brazilian Political Risk Rising Again Brazilian Political Risk Rising Again Brazil has a high number of coronavirus deaths per million people relative to other emerging markets with similar health capacity and susceptibility to the disease. This, combined with sharply rising unemployment, could prove toxic for Bolsonaro, who has not received a bounce in popular opinion from the crisis like most other world leaders. Thus on balance we expect the October local elections to mark a comeback for the Worker’s Party. The limited fiscal gains of Bolsonaro’s pension reform are already wiped out by the global recession, which will set back the country’s frail recovery from its biggest recession in a century. The country is still on an unsustainable fiscal path. Bolsonaro does not have a strong personal commitment to neoliberal structural reform, which has been put aside anyway due to the need for government fiscal spending amid the crisis. Unless Bolsonaro’s popularity increases in the wake of the crisis – due to backlash against the state-level lockdowns – the economic shock is negative for Brazil’s political stability and economic policy orthodoxy. Bottom Line: Our rule of thumb about petro-states suggests that they will generally act less aggressive amid a historic oil price collapse, but Iran may prove a critical exception. Investors should not underestimate the risk of a US-Iran conflict this year. Beyond that, the US election will have a decisive impact as the Democrats will seek to resume the Iranian nuclear deal and Iran would eventually play ball. Venezuela is less globally relevant this year – although a “wag the dog” scenario is a distinct possibility – but it may well be a major oil supply surprise in the 2020s. More broadly the takeaway is that oil production will be reduced involuntarily as well as voluntarily this year due to regime failures. Investment Takeaways Obviously any conflict with Iran could affect the range of Middle Eastern OPEC supply, not just the portion already shuttered due to sanctions on Iran itself. Any Iran war risk is entirely separate from the risk of supply destruction from more routine state failures in Africa. These shortages have been far less consequential lately and have plenty of room to grow in significance (Chart 20). The extreme lows in oil prices today will create the conditions for higher oil prices later when demand recovers, via supply destruction. Chart 20More Unplanned Outages To Come Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Chart 21European Political Risk No Longer Underrated European Political Risk No Longer Underrated European Political Risk No Longer Underrated An important implication – to be explored in future reports – is that Europe’s neighborhood is about to get a lot more dangerous in the coming years, as the Middle East and Russia will become less stable. Middle East instability will result in new waves of immigration and terrorism after a lull since 2015-16. These waves would fuel right-wing political sentiment in parts of Europe that are the most vulnerable in today’ crisis: Italy, Spain, and France (Chart 21). This should not be equated with the EU breaking apart, however, as the populist parties in these countries are pursuing soft rather than hard Euroskepticism. Unless that changes the risk is to the Euro Area’s policy coherence rather than its existence. Finally Russian domestic instability is one of the major secular consequences of the pandemic and recession and its consequences could be far-reaching, particularly in its great power struggle with the United States. We are reinitiating a strategic long in cyber security stocks, the ISE Cyber Security Index, relative to the S&P500 Info Tech sector. Cyberattacks are a form of asymmetrical warfare that we expect to ramp up with the general increase in global geopolitical tensions. The US’s recent official warning against an unknown actor that apparently intended to attack the health system of the Czech Republic highlights the way in which malign actors could attempt to capitalize on the chaos of the pandemic. We also recommend strategic investors reinitiate our “China Play Index” – commodities and equities sensitive to China’s reflation – and our BCA Infrastructure Basket, which will benefit from Chinese reflation as well as US deficit spending. China’s reflation will help industrial metals more so than oil, but it is positive for the latter as well. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 John Mauldin, "Don't Be So Sure That States Can't Go Bankrupt," Forbes, July 28, 2016, forbes.com.   Section II: Appendix : GeoRisk Indicator China China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Russia Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator UK UK: GeoRisk Indicator UK: GeoRisk Indicator Germany Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator France France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Italy Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Canada Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Spain Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Korea Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Appendix Table 1 The Global Fiscal Stimulus Response To COVID-19 Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

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

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of March 31, 2020.  The model upgraded Canada and Australia to overweight, financed by a reduction in the overweights of the US, Italy, Sweden and Spain, largely due to improvement in these two countries’ liquidity indicators. Now the US, Australia and Spain are the top three overweight countries, while Japan, the UK and France remain the three large underweight countries, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model underperformed the MSCI World benchmark in March by 78 bps. The Level 1 model outperformed 14 bps because of the overweight in the US, however, the non-US Level 2 model suffered 357 bps of underperformance driven largely by the underweight in Japan and overweight in Spain. Since going live, the overall model has underperformed by 8 bps, with 125 bps of underperformance by the Level 2 model, and 13 bps of underperformance from the Level 1. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA US Vs. Non US Model (Level 1) GAA US Vs. Non US Model (Level 1) GAA US Vs. Non US Model (Level 1)     Chart 3GAA Non US Model (Level 2) GAA Non US Model (Level 2) GAA Non US Model (Level 2) For more on historical performance, please refer to our website https://www.bcaresearch.com/site/trades/allocation_performance/latest/G…. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered as well when making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of March 31, 2020. The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak caused tremendous market volatility and huge declines in equities throughout March with the MSCI ACWI broad index down -24% overall, and various sectors hit even harder. Last month, the sector model’s defensive tilt helped mitigate this shortfall, and the model outperformed its benchmark by 85 basis points. The global growth proxy used in our model remains negative. This will continue to make the model's positioning focused on less cyclical sectors. Additionally, last month’s sector moves led the momentum component to favour Consumer Staples rather than Discretionary. The coordinated accommodative policy stance implemented by global central banks should keep the liquidity component favouring a mixed bag of cyclical and defensive sectors. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors except Energy. However, we highlight that Info Tech’s valuation component has broken into overvalued territory (yet the model awaits a downwards confirming momentum signal to recommend an underweight). The model is now overweight four sectors in total, one cyclical sector versus three defensive sectors. These are Information Technology, Utilities, Consumer Staples, and Health Care. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model”, dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Table 3Overall Model Performance GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 4Current Model Allocations GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates ​​​​​​​Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com ​​​​​​​Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com  

Late last year we started closely monitoring the Value Line Geometric Index (gauging the median stock, VLGI) and nominated it as a “Chart Of The Year” candidate. This Index’s track record was, and remains, 100% accurate in leading the SPX peaks. As a reminder, it petered out in advance of the SPX in all three previous recessions. It also topped out in advance of the February 19, 2020 SPX peak (see chart on the next page). Now this index has collapsed, falling intraday to a level of 293.6 from a peak of 594.35 in the summer of 2018, a greater than 50% drawdown. In fact, the VLGI recently returned to a level first hit in 1994! Our point here is that the median stock has collapsed in the broad US equity space and already reflects an economic and profit contraction similar to the Great Recession. While the VLGI’s track record at troughs is more coincident than leading, there is a high chance that stocks may have already put in a bottom. Bottom Line: Our view remains that investors with a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon and higher risk tolerance should be layering into this market. Chart 1 Chart 1 Chart 2 Chart 2 Chart 3 Chart 3