Disasters/Disease

Special Report

What Can 1918/1919 Teach Us About COVID-19?    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana – 1905   Chart 1Coronavirus: As Contagious But Not As Deadly As Spanish Flu Today’s economy is very different to that of 100 years ago. Many countries then were in the middle of World War I (which ended in November 1918). The characteristics of the Spanish Flu which struck the world in 1918 and 1919 were also different to this year’s pandemic. COVID-19 is almost as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but it is much less deadly (Chart 1). Healthcare systems and treatments today are far more advanced than those of a century ago: many people who caught Spanish flu died of complications caused by bacterial pneumonia, given the absence of antibiotics. Influenza viruses tend to mutate rapidly: the influenza virus in 1918 first mutated to become far more virulent in its second wave, and then to become much milder. Coronaviruses have a “proofreading” capacity and mutate less easily.1  Nevertheless, an analysis of the pandemic of 100 years ago provides a number of insights into the current crisis, particularly now that policymakers are easing social-distancing rules to help the economy, even at the risk of more cases and deaths. Among the lessons of 1918-1919: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) do lower mortality rates. The speed at which NPIs are implemented and the period of implementation are as important as the number of measures taken. Removing or relaxing measures too early can lead to a renewed rise in mortality rates. It is hard to compare current fiscal and monetary policies to those taken during the 1918 pandemic, since policy in both areas was already easy before the pandemic as a result of the world war. However, a severe pandemic would certainly call for a wartime-like fiscal and monetary response. The economy was negatively impacted by the pandemic in 1918-19 but, despite the shock to industrial activity and employment, the economy subsequently rebounded quickly, in a V-shaped recovery. Introduction Predicting how the economy will react to the COVID-19 pandemic is hard. Governments and policymakers face multiple uncertainties: How effective are different containment measures? Will cases and deaths rebound quickly if lockdown measures are eased? When will the coronavirus disappear? When will a vaccine be ready? With an event unprecedented in the experience of anyone alive today, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from history. For this Special Report, we attempt to draw some parallels between the current situation and the 1918-19 Spanish flu. We focus on the different containment efforts implemented, the role that fiscal and monetary policies played, the impact on markets and the economy, and whether history can throw any light on how the COVID-19 crisis might pan out. The 1918 Spanish Flu Chart 2The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal in modern history. Soldiers returning from World War I helped spread the pandemic across the globe. The first recorded case is believed to have been in an army camp in Kansas. While there is no official count, researchers estimate that about 500 million people contracted the virus globally, with a mortality rate of between 5% and 10%. The pandemic occurred over three waves in 1918 and 1919 – the first in the spring of 1918, the second (and most deadly) in the fall of 1918, and the third in spring 1919 (Chart 2). In the US alone, official data estimate that around 500,000 deaths (or over 25% of all deaths) in 1918 and 1919 were caused by pneumonia and influenza.2 The pandemic moved swiftly to Europe and reached Asia by mid-1918, but became more lethal only towards the end of the year (Map 1).3 Map 1The Spread Of Influenza Through Europe Initially, scientists were puzzled by the origin of the influenza and its biology. It was not until a decade later, in the early 1930s, that Richard Shope isolated the particular influenza virus from infected pigs, confirming that a virus caused the Spanish Flu, not a bacterium as most had thought. Many of those who caught this strain of influenza died as a result of their lungs filling with fluid in a severe form of pneumonia. In reporting death rates, then, it is considered best practice to include deaths from both influenza and pneumonia. The first wave had almost all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit of a highly contagious strain. Symptoms were similar and mortality rates were only slightly higher than a normal influenza. The first wave went largely unnoticed given that deaths from pneumonia were common then. US public health reports show that the disease received little attention until it reappeared in a more severe form in Boston in September 1918.4  Most countries did not begin investigating and reporting cases until the second wave was underway (Chart 3). Chart 3Most Countries Began Reporting Only When The Second Wave Hit This second wave – which was more lethal because the virus had mutated – had a unique characteristic. Unlike the typical influenza mortality curve – which is usually “U” shaped, affecting mainly the very young and elderly – the 1918 influenza strain had a “W”-shaped mortality curve – impacting young adults as well as old people (Chart 4). This pattern was evident in all three waves, but most pronounced during the second wave. The reason for this was that the infection caused by the influenza became hyperactive, producing a “cytokine storm” – when mediators secreted from the immune system result in severe inflammation.5 Simply put, as the virus became virulent, the body’s immune system overworked to fight it. Younger people, with strong immune systems, suffered most from this phenomenon. Chart 4A Unique Characteristic: Impacting Younger Adults By the summer of 1919, the pandemic was over, since those who had been infected had either died or recovered, therefore developing immunity. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if “herd immunity” was achieved. However, some historical accounts and research – particularly for army groups in the US and the UK – suggest that those exposed to the disease in the first mild wave were not affected during the second more severe wave.6 The failure to define the causative pathogen at the time made development of a vaccine impossible. Nevertheless, some treatments and remedies showed modest success. These varied from using a serum – obtained from people who had recovered, who therefore had antibodies against the disease – to simple symptomatic drugs and various oils and herbs. The Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) What we today call “social distancing” showed positive effects during the 1918-19 pandemic. These included measures very similar to those applied today: school closures, isolation and quarantines, bans on some sorts of public gatherings, and more. However, there were few travel bans.  The number of passengers carried during the months of the pandemic did noticeably decline though (Chart 5). Chart 5Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough Table 1, based on research by Hatchett, Mecher and Lipsitch, breaks down NPIs by type for 17 major US cities. Most cities implemented a wide range of interventions. But it was not only the type of NPIs implemented that made a difference, but also the speed and length of implementation. Table 1Measures Applied Then Are Very Similar To Those Applied Today Further research by Markel, Lipman and Navarro based on 43 US cities shows that the median number of days between the first reported influenza case and the first NPI implementation was over two weeks. The median period during which various NPIs were implemented was about six weeks (Table 2). Table 2NPIs Were Implemented Only For Short Periods Markel, Lipman and Navarro's findings show that a rapid public-health response was an important factor in reducing the mortality rate by slowing the rate of infection, what we now refer to as “flattening the curve.” There were major differences in cities’ policies: both the speed at which they implement NPIs, and the length of the implementation period. Chart 6 shows that: Cities that acted quickly to implement NPIs slowed the rate of infections and deaths (Chart 6, panel 1) Cities that acted quickly had lower mortality rates from influenza and pneumonia (Chart 6, panel 2) Cities that implemented NPIs for longer periods had fewer deaths (Chart 6, panel 3) Chart 7 quantifies the number of NPIs taken, the time it took to implement the measures, and the length of NPIs to gauge policy strictness. Cities with stricter enforcement had lower death rates than those with laxer measures. Chart 6Fast Response And Longer Implementation Led To Fewer Deaths... Chart 7...So Did Policy Strictness For example, Kansas City, less than a week after its first reported case, had implemented quarantine and isolation measures. By the second week, schools, churches, and other entertainment facilities closed. Schools reopened a month later (in early November) but quickly shut again until early January 1919.  While we do not have definitive dates on when each NPI was lifted, some sort of protective measures in Kansas City were in place for almost 170 days. By contrast, Philadelphia, one of the cities hardest hit by Spanish Flu, took more than a month to implement any measures. Its tardiness meant that it reached a peak mortality rate much more quickly: in 13 days compared to 31 days for Kansas City. Even after the first reported case, the Liberty Loans Parade was still held on September 28, 1918 – with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of spectators might be vulnerable to infection.7,8 It was not until a few days later that institutions were closed and a ban on public gatherings was imposed. Many other cities also held a Liberty Loans Parade, including Pittsburgh and Washington DC, but Philadelphia’s was the deadliest. Studies also show that relaxing interventions too early could be as damaging as implementing them too late. St. Louis, for example, was quick to lift restrictions and suffered particularly badly in the second wave as a result. It later reinstated NPIs up until end of February 1919. Other cities that eased restrictions too early (San Francisco and Minneapolis, for example) also suffered from a second swift, albeit milder, increase in weekly excess death rates from pneumonia and influenza (Chart 8). Chart 8Relaxing Lockdown Measures Too Early Can Lead To A Second Rise In Deaths... Chart 9...And So Can Highly Effective Measures Of course, NPIs cannot be implemented indefinitely. A recent research paper by Bootsma and Ferguson raises the point that suppressing a pandemic may not be the best strategy because it just leaves some people susceptible to infection later. They argue that highly effective social distancing measures, which allow a susceptible pool of people to reintegrate into society when the measures are lifted, are likely to lead to a resurgence in infections and fatalities in a second peak (Chart 9).9 They suggest an optimal level of control measures to reduce R (the infection rate) to a value that makes a significant portion of the population immune once measures are lifted.   The Impact Of The Spanish Flu On The Economy And Markets How did the Spanish Flu pandemic affect the economy? Many pandemic researchers ignore the official recession identified by the NBER during the months of the pandemic (between August 1918 and March 1919).10 The reason is that most of the evidence indicates that the economic effects of the 1918-19 pandemic were short-term and relatively mild.11 Disentangling drivers of the economy is, indeed, tricky given that WW1 ended in November 1918. However, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact of the pandemic since the war had such a big impact on the economy, as well as investor and public sentiment. Various research papers support the fact that, while the pandemic did indeed have an adverse effect on the economy, NPIs did not just depress mortality rates, but also sped the post-pandemic economic recovery.12 Research by Correia, Sergio, and Luck showed that the areas most severely affected by the pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity, whereas cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively, experienced a relative increase in economic activity post the pandemic.13 Their findings are based on the increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic compared to before it (1919 versus 1914). However, note that the rise of manufacturing payrolls in 1919 was high everywhere given the return of soldiers post-WWI. The researchers also note that those cities hardest hit by the pandemic also saw a negative impact on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets. Because Spanish flu disproportionately killed younger adults, many families lost their breadwinner. In economic terms, this implies both a negative supply shock and negative demand shock. If fewer employees are available to produce a certain good, supply will fall. The same reduction in employment also implies reduced income and therefore lower purchasing power. Both cases will result in a decrease in output. However, the change in prices depends on the decline of supply relative to demand. In 1918-19, the impact was disinflationary: demand declined by more than supply, and both spending and consumer prices fell during the pandemic (Chart 10). Chart 10Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary US factory employment fell by over 8% between March 1918 and March 1919 – the period from the beginning of the first wave until the end of the second wave. It is important to note, however, that few businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic years (Chart 11). Additionally, the November 1918 Federal Reserve Bulletin highlighted that many cities, including New York, Kansas City, and Richmond, experienced a shortage of labor due to the influenza.14  Factory employment in New York fell by over 10% during this period.  Chart 11Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners The link between the labor shortages and the decline in industrial production is unclear. Industrial activity in the US peaked just before the second wave, contracting by over 20% during the second wave (Chart 12). Various industries reported disruptions: automobile production fell by 67%, anthracite coal production and shipments fell by around 45%, and railroad freight revenues declined by over seven billion ton-miles (Chart 12, panels 2, 3 & 4). However, some of this decline is attributed to falling defense production after the war. Chart 12Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly Chart 13The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic The equity market moved in a broad range in 1915-1919 and fell sharply only ahead of the 1920 recession (Chart 13). Seemingly, stock market participants were more focused on the war than the pandemic. The lack of reporting of the pandemic could have contributed to this: newspapers were encouraged to avoid carrying bad news for reasons of patriotism and did not widely cover the pandemic until late 1918.15   Chart 14Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started The Federal Reserve played an active role in funding the government’s spending on the war, and so monetary policy was very easy during the pandemic – but for other reasons. The Fed used its position as a lender to the banking system to facilitate war bond sales.16 Interest rates were cut in 1914 and 1915 even before the US entered the war. The US economy had been in recession between January 1913 and December 1914. Policy rates remained low throughout 1916 and 1917 and slightly rose in 1918 and 1919. It was not until 1920 that Federal Reserve Bank System tightened policy rapidly to choke off inflation, which accelerated to over 20% in mid-1920 – rising inflation being a common post-war phenomenon (Chart 14). The Lessons Of 1918-19 For The Coronavirus Pandemic Non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be implemented until a vaccine, effective therapeutic drugs, or mass testing is available. Relaxing measures prematurely is as damaging as a tardy reaction to the pandemic. Reacting quickly and imposing multiple measures for longer periods not only reduces mortality rates, but also improves economic outcomes post-crisis. The economy suffers in the short-term: supply and demand shocks lead to lower output. The demand shock however is larger leading to lower prices and disinflationary pressures, at least during and immediately after the pandemic.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see the Q&A with immunologist and Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, published by BCA Research April 1st 2020: BCA Research Special Report, “Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers,” available at bcaresearch.com 2 Please see “Leading Cause of Death, 1990-1998,” CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 3 Please see Ansart S, Pelat C, Boelle PY, Carrat F, Flahault A, Valleron AJ, “Mortality burden of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in Europe,” NCBI. 4 Please see Public Health Report, vol. 34, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1919. 5 Please see Qiang Liu, Yuan-hong Zhou, Zhan-qiu Yang Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan; 13(1): 3–10. 6 Please see Shope, R. (1958) Public Health Rep. 73, 165–178. 7 The Liberty Loans Parade was intended to promote the sale of government bonds to pay for World War One. 8 Please see Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M (2007) "Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic,"PNAS 104: 7582–7587. 9 Please see Bootsma M, Ferguson N, “The Effect Of Public Health Measures On The 1918 Influenza Pandemic In U.S. Cities,” PNAS (2007). 10Please see https://www.nber.org/cycles.html 11Please see https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/research-reports/pandemic_flu_report.pdf 12Please see https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/03/fight-the-pandemic-save-the-economy-lessons-from-the-1918-flu.html. 13Please see Correia, Sergio and Luck, Stephan and Verner, Emil, Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu (March 30, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561560 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560. 14Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- and Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1935. "November 1918," Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1918). 15Please see https://newrepublic.com/article/157094/americas-newspapers-covered-pandemic. 16Please see https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_role_during_wwi.

Highlights At 50% Trump’s reelection odds are too high, flagging a risk to equity markets of policy discontinuity. The virus, unemployment, and wages will weigh on him over the year. Trump’s polling is firm because the crisis is still acute. If it remains firm when the dust settles then we will reassess. Trump is competitive in swing states, but not clearly leading. The stock market, as a single variable, is an excellent gauge of reelection odds for ruling parties in US elections going back to 1896. It gives Trump a 16% chance as of today. This is too low, but unemployment and wages also suggest he is an underdog. Michelle Obama and Justin Amash are potential spoilers flying under the radar. The Senate will follow the White House, signaling an understated risk of a total policy reversal and hard left turn in US policy. Massive stimulus motivates our long run risk-on trades: cyber security, infrastructure, Fed-backed corporate bonds, and China reflation plays. Europe and European industrials stand to benefit on a relative basis if Biden wins. Feature Chart 1Recent Poll Shows Trump Leads In Swing States President Donald Trump’s reelection bid is holding up better than we expected so far this year. Trump leads former Vice President Joe Biden in swing states by 52% to 45%, according to a poll taken by CNN from May 7-10 (Chart 1). Our poll of polls below are not as supportive, but this is a strong sign of competitiveness for a sitting president in the midst of a pandemic, recession, social unrest, and controversy over reopening the economy. Naturally several clients have pushed back against our decision to downgrade Trump’s chances of victory from 55% to 35% back in March. We don’t mind the heat – we took the heat for two years while we favored Trump for reelection. Moreover we are not dogmatic. If the facts change, we will change our minds. So far, we are sticking to our view. It is a view that implies risk to corporate earnings and hence supports a tactically bearish or short positioning on the S&P 500. If Trump maintains and builds on his popular support, particularly by August when the Republican and Democratic parties hold their conventions, then we will upgrade his odds, assuming that the economy is improving and the pandemic is abating. At present the market is underrating the challenges facing the president, as we outline in this report. Reopening Poses Downside Risks To Trump Chart 2US Follows The Swedes So far reopening is helping Trump, but it poses a major risk to him down the line this year. The election is five months away – a world away. The new “whistleblower’s complaint” against the Trump administration argues that America faces its “darkest winter in modern history” due to the impending second wave of the virus. However, we rely on the testimony of Anthony Fauci to the Senate this week. Fauci said that states can continue to reopen as long as they adhere to federal guidelines that require 14 days of declining cases in the first phase. June 1 is an acceptable time for most states to open. The trajectory of US deaths per million is deviating from the path of the European Union and moving toward the path charted by Sweden. Swedes have adhered strictly to looser guidelines; Americans have adhered loosely to stricter guidelines. The US death count per million people, a lagging indicator, will rise or at least remain flat in the coming months if states and individuals are not vigilant and compliant (Chart 2). One should assume, however, that governments and individuals will alter their behavior for the sake of self-preservation and in light of new information. Interior American states – those not included in the “COVID confederacy” of western and eastern Democratic states – have seen a tentative drop in deaths (Charts 3A & 3B). While looser restrictions will lead to higher deaths than otherwise, it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be unmanageable for the health system. Chart 3AInterior US Sees Rising COVID Cases … Chart 3B… And Deaths Could Rise From Here From an Electoral College perspective – an absurd way to look at a pandemic, but such are the times – the red states will see an accelerating case count and death toll if they do not actively manage the reopening process (Charts 4A & 4B). This is a political liability. Chart 4ARed States Stable In Case Count … Chart 4B… Yet Deaths Could Tick Up Expectations that Trump is a slam dunk for reelection neglect the obvious fact that interior states shut down before they suffered the full brunt of the pandemic. If new outbreaks spiral out of control, it will have a negative political ramification for those pushing for a quick reopening. That will eventually accrue to the president, with whom the buck stops. A resurgence of infections, whether this summer or this fall, will be met with better preparedness, in terms of non-pharmaceutical intervention (social distancing) and likely pharmaceutical intervention as well (anti-virals, probably not yet a vaccine). But the virus is now underrated as a political risk since President Trump is fully identified with the decision to “liberate” the states yet his polls are firm and online gamblers on sites like PredictIt are giving him a roughly 50% chance of winning reelection. Bottom Line: If outbreaks spiral out of control in swing states then the incumbent president and ruling party will be punished. The evolution of cases and deaths is critical in the near term. Uncertainty over reopening, and understated risks of political change, call for a higher equity risk premium and hence more downside for share prices. Trump’s Approval Gains Are Slight Americans are hitting “peak polarization” this year and the coming years. It is well known that partisanship is affecting voters’ views on objective reality. But notice that all consumers are getting more optimistic about the future, not just Republicans (Chart 5). Chart 5Sentiment Is Polarized But Everyone Sees Improvements On Horizon Uncertainty over reopening and understated risks of political change, call for more downside for share prices. There is a clear bifurcation in voter’s opinions of Trump’s handling of the economy as against the pandemic. Voters approve less and less of his pandemic response; they disapprove less and less of his handling of the economy (Charts 6A & 6B). Chart 6ATrump’s Approval Falling On COVID-19 … Chart 6BYet Supported On Economy Chart 7Voters Wary Of Reopening Too Fast The implication is that if the economy is the single biggest issue in November, then Trump made the right electoral call to reopen fast and focus on presiding over the biggest stimulus in history. Yet a clear majority feels the country is lifting restrictions too quickly. Only a slight majority of Republicans agree with him (Chart 7). Recent Emerson and Marist polls reinforce the point that the economy is the most important issue. Biden is leading Trump on the coronavirus – and notably leading older voters on both issues (Charts 8A & 8B). Chart 8AVoters Still Most Concerned About The Economy Chart 8BYet One Poll Says Biden Gaining Lead On Both Economy And Pandemic Trump’s national approval rating remains underwater, but it has gradually converged with the average of American presidents (Chart 9). A major incident of social unrest – which is possible given active protest movements amid high polarization – would hurt him. The lowest point in his approval rating occurred in August 2017 during the Charlottesville, Virginia protests against taking down a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee that turned bloody. Incidents of social unrest will be exploited by both political extremes, but a rise in unrest in general would cause anxiety among middle-of-the-road voters and tend to hurt the ruling party. Chart 9Trump Rising – But Social Unrest A Risk Chart 10Trump Not Yet Clearly On Obama Trajectory Chart 11Trump Gaining Among Hispanics, But Slight Dip Among Elderly Comparing Trump’s approval rating to his immediate predecessors is more realistic because general presidential approval has declined over time due to polarization. On this front, Trump is falling short of President Obama at this stage in 2012. Of course, he could still rally in the lead-up to the campaign, as is typical of sitting presidents (Chart 10). An important caveat is that Trump is making headway in unexpected voting groups. His support is surging among Hispanics, who are disproportionately hurt by economic lockdowns due to the sectoral concentration of their labor, yet less likely to die of COVID-19 (most likely because they are a younger cohort relative to blacks and whites). Moreover this trend began before the coronavirus and coincides with a rise in approval among electorally vital Midwesterners, as well as young people (Chart 11). The implication is that Democrats’ decision to impeach Trump has helped him, just as we argued it would last year, and yet COVID-19 has not reversed his gains. Older people, as mentioned, are a very important exception. They are the critical voting bloc and most susceptible to the virus. They are tentatively becoming less approving of the president. This is according to this Gallup poll, to the CNN poll highlighted at the top of this report, and the aforementioned poll in Chart 8 above. The right-leaning pollster Rasmussen – a proxy for those trying to avoid anti-Trump skews in polling due to any self-censorship or methodological biases – shows that Trump’s approval rating bottomed at a slightly lower level than it did when the Zelensky call appeared last fall, but not as low as during the market plunge and political controversies of late 2018 (Chart 12). This is good news for Trump. Chart 12Trump Reviving From Virus Hit, Shows Rasmussen Polling Chart 13Trump’s Polling Bounce Small Relative To Peers Yet Trump’s polling “bounce,” as the nation rallies around his leadership amid crisis, is small at two percentage points. Other leaders have gotten bigger boosts (Chart 13). More importantly, Trump’s polling bounce is miniscule compared to the average bounce for American presidents during crises that assail the US from the outside (Table 1). Table 1Trump’s Crisis Polling Bounce Compared To Previous Presidential Bounces Bottom Line: Trump is holding up surprisingly well with voters amid the crisis given his past polling. This is an important signal. But it is important to see if it is sustained after the acute phase passes. His polling gains are small relative to US history and contemporary peers. His consistent strong marks on the economy only matter if the economy is the chief issue of the election, but the pandemic creates a major risk that this election could be one of the unusual elections in which a non-economic issue is the most salient. Trump Isn’t Winning In Head-To-Head Polls Earlier we highlighted Trump’s lead in swing states, according to the latest CNN poll. But in our aggregate of polls, Biden is leading in all swing states except Ohio (Chart 14A). Chart 14ABiden Leads Swing State Poll-Of-Polls Except Ohio The lead is within the margin of error in Wisconsin, Florida, and Arizona, meaning the candidates are effectively tied. But that reflects negatively on the sitting president, since incumbents have an advantage over challengers, and Biden is widely known to be a deeply flawed challenger. Trump has taken a big hit in head-to-head polls in critical states. Moreover the year-to-date change in these head-to-head polls suggests that Trump has taken a big hit in critical states: Florida, Arizona, and even Ohio, which should be rock solid for him (Chart 14B). Chart 14BTrump Suffered Blow From Virus In Swing State Poll-Of-Polls The consolation for Trump is that Biden, “Sleepy Joe in the basement,” who is fending off mounting accusations of sexual misconduct against Tara Reade, has either lost ground or made negligible gains. Clients often tell us they do not trust the polls. But post-WWII history shows that polls are fairly accurate and more accurate for sitting presidents than their challengers. Incumbents have averaged 55% of the popular vote, versus 49% for challengers, a clear indication of the incumbent advantage (Chart 15A). Chart 15ASitting Presidents Usually Win The Popular Vote Voter intentions in October and November ahead of the election are usually only 0.8% lower than the sitting president’s actual vote share. However, the same polls tend to underrate challengers by 2.2% (Chart 15B). Chart 15BPolling Is Accurate – Yet Underrates Challengers More Than Incumbent Presidents Chart 16Trump’s Favorability Less Negative, Biden’s Turns Negative Favorability polling is of limited relevance, given that the candidates for president in 2016 and 2020 are the least favorable of all politicians. Polarization makes it so that being hated by the other party is an asset. But it is notable that Trump’s net favorability is not half as negative as it was in 2016, and that he is tied with Biden, whereas Biden has fallen a great distance since the last economic crisis, when he had greater favorability than Barack Obama (Chart 16). Bottom Line: The candidates are virtually tied in the swing states and Biden’s slight lead in our poll-of-polls has not benefited from the crisis. Incumbents tend to outperform their polling by one point, but challengers tend to outperform by two. Biden is manifestly a weak challenger but taking all the evidence together he has a slight lead at present in the swing states. Stock Market And Recession Are Worrisome For Trump Table 2Trump’s Odds 50% At Most Based On Historic Recession/Election Probabilities US elections are a referendum on the incumbent party. Recessions tend to destroy sitting presidents. This is true, but there are important exceptions. A close look at the odds of sitting presidents, as well as sitting parties, and the timing of when the economy resumes expansion, suggests that Trump’s odds of winning are at best 50/50 (Table 2). Our own quantitative election model shows the same thing, and has hovered at 51% all along, although it will flip key states against him once state-level data are updated for the collapse in the economy. Fernando Crupi, of BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy, shows what a simple and straightforward look at the S&P 500 implies about Trump’s odds. Together we looked at two variables in elections since 1896: the market performance year to date on October 31 of the election year, and the result of the election for the incumbent party, i.e. victory if the incumbent party is reelected or loss if the new president hails from the opposing party. To estimate the probability of victory we use a logistic model, a widely used statistical tool designed to predict probabilities which can only range between zero and one, never hitting them.1 It is virtually impossible for an election outcome to be certain. The results are as follows: The year-to-date performance of the S&P 500 is a statistically significant variable (at the 5% level) in determining the fate of an incumbent party and has a positive correlation with it. Out of 31 elections, the model correctly predicted the outcome of 77% of the elections in-sample. While this is far from perfect it is remarkable given that we are using the market performance as the only explanatory variable. The effect of an additional percentage point of stock market performance is not linear on the incumbent party’s re-election odds, so two numbers are worthwhile expressing. At the mean S&P 500 YTD performance of the 31 elections, an additional percentage point increase in the market would increase the incumbent party’s odds of winning by 2.8 percentage points, and a decrease would decrease it by the same. By comparison, for all possible values of market performance, the average effect of an additional percentage point increase (or decrease) of the market would increase (or decrease) the probability of an incumbent party re-election by 2.1 percentage points. Chart 17 helps to visualize the model – for any percentage of market performance YTD as of October 31, it shows Trump’s odds of reelection this fall. With the S&P down by 13% this year, Trump’s odds would be 16%. A 10ppt recuperation in the S&P 500 from here would increase his chances to 40% and a 15ppt recuperation would bring him to 55%. Chart 17The Stock Market Says Trump’s Reelection Odds Are 16% Obviously the stock market is likely to rally or sell off for various reasons, for instance, if it thinks that the economy will get worse and the incumbent will lose. A change of government introduces policy uncertainty. Our own electoral model, explained in previous reports, is more robust than this back-of-the-envelope experiment and produces a more favorable outcome for Trump. So while the S&P may be low-balling Trump at 16%, we have no basis either in history or in formal modeling to give him more than a 50% chance as things stand today. And subjectively we think 50% is too high. Presidential approval follows the unemployment rate in the final innings of the campaign. Trump is doomed by this measure. Lastly, to reiterate and update key points we have made in the past: Presidential approval tends to follow the unemployment rate in the final innings of the campaign. Trump is obviously doomed by this measure, as it is the net change over time that matters most (Charts 18A & 18B). Chart 18AUnemployment Rate A Huge Chart 18B… And Tends To Predict Voter turnout is one of the hardest variables to predict, but it follows pretty closely with the change in unemployment over the preceding four years in the swing states. High turnout amid a deep recession is negative for the incumbent president (Chart 19). Chart 19Surge In Unemployment Positive For Turnout, Yet Hurts Incumbent Our subjective probability of reelection, at 35% as of March 24, holds up pretty well in this light. We will adjust this as new evidence comes to light. Bottom Line: To claim that Trump’s odds of reelection are substantially higher than 50% is to argue that “this time is different.” The market should keep falling from its April 29 peak around 2950 not only because of uncertainty about the pandemic and economy but also because of the risk that Trump’s troubles lead to market-negative outcomes. Michelle And Justin As Spoilers With multiple overlapping crises and high polarization, we have highlighted the high potential for extreme events, black swans, and spoilers. These do not include any move of the election date – that would make Trump look weak and would require House Democrats to agree to change a key 1845 statute.2 But they include almost everything else: violent incidents, disputes over voting methods amid the virus, vote recounts, judicial interventions, Electoral College irregularities, congressional intercession, refusals to concede, you name it. We would not be surprised if the Supreme Court took an opportunity currently before it to rule in favor of punishments against “faithless electors” or even to prohibit electors from voting contrary to the popular will in general. On a much less important note, we would also not be surprised if the high court enables President Trump’s personal accounts and tax records to be subpoenaed. Another possible spoiler: Michelle Obama. Chart 20Michelle Obama Objective Best Pick For Vice President Biden is currently mulling his pick for the vice presidential candidate. None of the candidates are magical: Senator Amy Klobuchar makes the most sense of the conventional options as she could improve his standing among women, Midwesterners, white voters, and suburbanites. She hails from Minnesota, he from Pennsylvania, creating a potential pincer movement in the Electoral College. Klobuchar’s favorability is stronger than that of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, neither of whom can help bring a swing state (Chart 20).3 Yet Warren is well known and could help mend the gap with the progressive wing of the party. Picking her highlights the understated risk to the market of a progressive turn in Biden’s platform. Stacey Abrams could help bring over the black vote but she is sorely lacking in credentials and is reminiscent of the GOP’s desperate and failed bid to reconnect with its base by nominating Sarah Palin in 2008. The obvious choice is Michelle Obama. She has the highest favorability by far, including when her detractors are netted out. She solidifies Biden’s connection with Barack Obama, helps energize progressives, women, and minorities who are needed to turn out. And her power base is in the Midwest. One little problem … Michelle has repeatedly said she does not wish to run. Others have confirmed she has no interest. And a Machiavellian political adviser could advise her to wait until later when there is no incumbent president and then run directly for the top job, free of Biden’s baggage. We held the latter view, until the corona crisis. Trump was heavily favored prior to recession. Now the tables have turned. And a vice presidential role would improve her chances of being the first woman president later. The fact that she apparently does not want to run is obviously a huge problem. But her party needs her and this fact may become increasingly evident as Biden’s weaknesses are exposed. Vice presidential picks seldom make a difference in the campaign. At best they can help bring a swing state. But this election is different. Biden would turn 78 immediately after being elected; he is more likely than the average president to depend upon his VP while ruling, and to pass the baton to the VP early. COVID-19 underscores this risk. In other words, this year is the rare case where the Veep pick is important enough to matter and a charismatic candidate exists who could materially improve the odds of the opposition party’s victory. Would Michelle really help? An argument could be made that the Obama legacy is tarnished and that Trump would relish the chance to run against the Obama brand. However, our reasoning is based on Electoral College scenarios drawn from the best demographic data available, which suggest that the strongest challenge the Democrats can mount in 2020 is to reproduce the 2012 Obama/Biden ticket (Chart 21). Chart 21Electoral College Scenarios Say Biden/Obama 2012 Redux Best Shot For Dems To Beat Trump Chart 22Amash Is Small, But Significant Another important potential spoiler is Justin Amash. Amash is a former Republican who defected from the party due to his opposition to Trump and has since become the nation’s first congressman of the Libertarian Party. Amash could be important because he hails from Michigan, a key swing state, and is a splinter from the right-wing rather than the left-wing, thus potentially threatening President Trump’s thin margins in the battleground states. Currently Amash is winning 3%-5% of the popular vote, according to polls (Chart 22). Historically an extremely elevated third party vote is a threat to the incumbent president and ruling party, regardless of ideological affiliation. This is because it bespeaks general popular discontent, which in turn reflects negatively on the status quo and ruling party. However, so far Amash is not popular enough to hit the extremely elevated threshold. Looking at third party candidacies that have drawn more than 2% of the vote over history, the incumbent party wins 50% of the time. So the historical results are indecisive, but they do show potential for Amash to play the spoiler (Table 3). Table 3How Do Sitting US Presidents And Their Parties Fare When Voters Turn To Third Parties? Furthermore a larger group of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters are determined not to vote for Biden than Republican and Republican-leaning voters are determined not to vote for Trump (Chart 23). The Republican Party rank and file support Trump enthusiastically, more so than Democrats support Biden, especially in the swing states (Chart 24). This suggests that Amash will fail to get traction among Republicans. Chart 23Left-Leaners Reject Biden More Than Right-Leaners Reject Trump Chart 24GOP More Zealous For Trump Than Dems For Biden We would not rule him out, however. The context of pandemic, deep recession, and extreme polarization is fertile for a third party candidate, as was the case in 2016. If support for Trump wanes due to the mounting death toll and unemployment rate, the weakness of Biden might point to defections from Trump’s camp to Amash. Again, this could be particularly relevant in swing states. Amash may not garner more votes than Gary Johnson, his Libertarian predecessor in 2016, since that year saw an “open election” favorable to third parties, whereas this year there is an incumbent running. But Amash has flown entirely under the radar. He is therefore underrated by markets. And his impact, in the final analysis, will likely prove more negative for the ruling party than Biden, who is very far from a libertarian. Bottom Line: Peak polarization and a historic national crisis will produce black swans. But some spoilers are identifiable. Biden picking Michelle Obama, and a small but significant margin of Republicans defecting to Amash in swing states, are non-negligible risks to Trump’s reelection odds. What About The Senate? Democrats are likely to retain the House of Representatives, unless the positive trends for Trump that we have highlighted start to snowball into massive momentum. Hence the Senate will be decisive to the legislative success of the next administration. It is especially relevant if a Democrat wins, since the implication would be single party control of both legislative and executive branches. By contrast, Trump’s reelection would imply a continuation of today’s balance of power. Online gamblers have finally come around to our long-held view that the Senate will go the way of the White House: currently PredictIt gives the Democrats a 52% chance, up substantially from last year. Republican Senate leaders have openly aired their fears as the election cycle picks up. The risk to Republican control is not merely because the crisis has erased the uptick in Republican Party affiliation (Chart 25), nor is it due to the break in Republican momentum in generic voter party support (Chart 26), though these developments are unwelcome to Republicans. Chart 25Republican Affiliation Of Voters Rolls Over Chart 26Democrats Tick Up Slightly In Generic Congressional Ballot Rather, politics have increasingly become nationalized and more Republican senators are at risk than Democrats due to the windfall Republican senate victory in 2014. Current polling reinforces that the Senate stands on a knife’s edge, as all races are virtually tied, except Colorado, which is a likely shoo-in for Democrats. Arizona is almost as good for them (Chart 27). Democrats need to take four seats plus the White House to win the chamber. Chart 27Close Races In Senate Will Follow The White House Bottom Line: The Senate will go the way of the White House, which means the market is not only underrating a Biden victory but also underrating the probability that he is unconstrained. With peak polarization, and full Democratic control, Biden would not prove a center-left president in office. He would end up governing to the left of the Obama administration. Investment Takeaways Why does the election matter? If Trump loses, the United States will most likely see another total reversal of national policy, as in 2016 and 2008. Yet this time the macroeconomic, political, and demographic backdrop will make it harder for Republicans to stage as effective of resistance as in 2010-16. This is positive for aggregate demand, due to fiscal policy, but negative for corporate earnings. Biden will be pushed to the left by the progressive wing of his party and will face relatively few legislative or judicial constraints. The Democrats will also surprise the market with a tough stance toward China to steal back the mantle of fighting for American workers. Big business will face higher taxes, sweeping re-regulation, and trade restrictions, all at the same time. The S&P 500 has fallen 4% since we recommended investors step back from the rally. We see more downside due to sluggish recoveries, viral outbreaks, hiccups in providing stimulus, and political and geopolitical risks. The S&P’s next support levels are at 2670 and 2250. Chart 28China Faces Protectionism Either Way, But Europe Only With Trump In the short term, Trump’s odds are overrated. We will upgrade him if the stock market, economy, and political indicators improve substantially from what we are seeing today by August when the two parties hold their conventions. What about our view that Trump will crack down on China? A crackdown will cause the S&P to sell. Yet a dramatic selloff that destroys his reelection hopes, or a rally based on massive stimulus, both encourage him to escalate the crisis. Politically, confronting China is positive for him and he cannot let Biden outmaneuver him on workers, trade, and China. This entire dynamic leaves us inclined to be risk-averse. For investors with a long time horizon we recommend selective risk-on investments such as cyber-security, infrastructure, China reflation plays, and investment grade corporate bonds, the latter now backed by the Federal Reserve. A parting thought on industrials. Gargantuan stimulus is positive for cyclical stocks over the long run. But Trump’s reelection raises the prospect of trade war not only with China but also with Europe. It also increases the substantial risk of an expanding conflict with Iran that sows unrest in the Middle East over the next five years. Whereas Biden would seek a united front with Europe against China and would reduce Middle Eastern risks to Europe. Hence over the long run European industrials can benefit disproportionately from a Biden win, on a policy-oriented basis, compared to a Trump win (Chart 28).     Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Fernando Crupi Research Associate fernandoc@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Compared to a simple regression line, the effect of the explanatory variable on the predicted probabilities varies along the curve. An increase (or decrease) in our explanatory variable by one unit has a smaller and smaller effect on the probability of victory as we approach our upper and lower probability bounds of 0 and 1. Obviously this model cannot fully explain the outcome of an election nor establish causality, but it gives us a good indication of how important the market performance is for an incumbent party to be re-elected. 2 Please see Acts of the Twenty-Eight Congress of the United States, Statute II, Library of Congress. www.loc.gov. 3 The only superior scenario mathematically, in which Biden aims solely at winning back the Democrats’ old blue collar white voter base, is much less likely to succeed given that these voters have drifted to the GOP in recent decades and have been galvanized by Trump.

Dear Client, In lieu of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report on China from Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Matt will discuss whether China’s President Xi Jinping is losing his political mandate. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The pandemic is likely to have a more severe impact on Main Street than Wall Street, which helps explain why stocks have rallied off their lows even as bond yields have remained depressed. Equity investors are hoping that central banks will keep rates lower for longer, while fiscal easing will revive demand. The end result could be lower bond yields within the context of a full employment economy – a win-win for stocks.  In the near term, these hopes could be dashed, given bleak economic data, falling earnings estimates, and rising worries about a second wave of the pandemic. Longer term, an elevated equity risk premium and the likelihood that the pandemic will not have a significantly negative effect on the supply side of the economy argue for overweighting stocks over bonds. Negative real rates will continue to support gold prices. A weaker dollar later this year will also help. Divergent Signals Chart 1Conflicting Signals Global equities have rallied 24% off their March lows. The S&P 500 is down only 12% year-to-date and is trading close to where it was last August. In contrast, bond yields have barely risen since March. The US 10-year note currently yields 0.63%, down from 1.92% at the start of the year. The yield on the 30-year bond stands at a mere 1.3%. While crude oil and industrial metal prices have generally tracked bond yields, gold prices have rallied alongside equities (Chart 1). It would be easy to throw up one’s hands and exclaim that markets are behaving schizophrenically. Yet, we think it is possible to reconcile these seemingly divergent price patterns in a way that sheds light on where the major asset classes are likely to go in the months ahead. Two important points should be kept in mind: Bonds and industrial commodities tend to reflect the outlook for the real economy (i.e., Main Street) whereas stocks reflect the outlook for corporate earnings (i.e., Wall Street). The two often move together but can occasionally diverge in important ways. Stock prices and bond yields will tend to move in tandem when deflationary pressures are intensifying; however, the two often move in opposite directions when monetary policy is becoming more accommodative. The former prevailed in early March whereas the latter has been the dominant force since central banks have opened up the monetary spigots. The Real Economy Is Suffering The current economic downturn will go down as the deepest since the Great Depression. The IMF expects global GDP to contract by 3% this year, compared with a flat reading in 2009. GDP in advanced economies is projected to fall by 6%, twice as bad as in 2009 (Chart 2). Chart 2Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year Unemployment rates are also likely to reach the highest levels since the 1930s. The US unemployment rate spiked to 14.7% in April. Even that understates the true increase in joblessness. The labor force has shrunk by 8 million workers since February. If everyone who had left the labor force had been considered unemployed, the unemployment rate would have jumped to nearly 19% (Chart 3). Unemployment among less-skilled workers rose more than among the skilled. Joblessness also increased more among women than men (Chart 4). Chart 3Increase In Joblessness Is Understated Chart 4Unemployment Has Risen More For Less Skilled Workers And Women The one silver lining is that unlike in past recessions, temporary layoffs have accounted for the vast majority of job losses (Chart 5). This suggests that the links between firms and workers have yet to be severed. As businesses reopen, the hope is that most of these workers will be able to return to their jobs, fueling a rebound in spending. Chart 5Temporary Layoffs Account For Most Of The Recent Increase In Unemployment Risks Of A Second Wave Will that hope be realized? As we discussed last week, the virus that causes COVID-19 is highly contagious – probably twice as contagious as the one that caused the Spanish flu.1 While some social distancing measures will persist even if governments relax lockdown orders, the risk is high that we will see a second wave of infections. Even if a second wave ensues, we do not expect stocks to take out their March lows. In many places, the second wave could come on top of a first wave that has barely abated. This is precisely what happened during the Spanish flu pandemic (Chart 6). Stock prices and credit spreads have closely tracked the number of Google queries about the coronavirus (Chart 7). If the number of new infections begins to trend higher, concern about the pandemic will deepen. This makes us somewhat wary about the near-term direction of risk assets. Chart 6The Lesson From The Spanish Flu: The Second Wave Could Be Worse Than The First Chart 7Joined At The Hip   March Was The Bottom In Equities Nevertheless, even if a second wave ensues, we do not expect stocks to take out their March lows. This is partly because the cone of uncertainty around the virus has narrowed. We now know that the fatality rate from the virus is around 1%-to-1.5%, which makes COVID-19 ten times more deadly than the common flu, but still less lethal than SARS or MERS, let alone some avian flu strains which have mortality rates upwards of 50%. A few treatments for the virus are on the horizon. Gilead’s remdesivir appears to be effective in treating COVID-19. Blood plasma injections also look promising. A vaccine developed by researchers at the University of Oxford has been shown to be safe on humans and effective against COVID-19 on rhesus monkeys. Production of the vaccine has already begun, and if it works well on humans, the Oxford scientists expect it to be widely available by September.2 The Stock Market Is Not The Economy Then there is the issue of Main Street versus Wall Street. US equities account for over half of global stock market capitalization. Tech and health care are the two largest sectors in the S&P 500. The former has benefited from the shift towards digital commerce in the wake of the pandemic, while the latter is a highly defensive sector that has gained from the flurry of interest in new treatments for the disease (Chart 8). Chart 8AUS Equity Sectors: Winners And Losers From The Pandemic (I) Chart 8BUS Equity Sectors: Winners And Losers From The Pandemic (II) Even within individual sectors, the impact on Wall Street has been more muted than on Main Street. For example, spending on consumer discretionary goods and services has plummeted across the real economy over the past few months. Yet, this has not hurt equity investors as much as one might have expected. Amazon accounts for 55% of the retail sector’s market capitalization. Home Depot is in second place by market cap. Home Depot’s stock is trading near an all-time high, buoyed by increased spending on home improvement projects by people stuck at home. McDonald's, which is benefiting from the shift to take-out ordering, is the largest stock in the consumer services sector (followed by Starbucks). Contrary to the claim that the stock market is blissfully ignorant of the mounting economic damage, those sectors that one would expect to suffer from a pandemic-induced downturn have, in fact, suffered. Airline stocks, which account for less than 2% of the industrials sector, have plunged. The same is true for cruise ship stocks. Bank stocks have also been beaten down, reflecting fears of heightened loan losses. Likewise, lower oil prices have undercut the stocks of energy exploration and production companies (Chart 9). At the regional level, non-US stocks, with their heavy weighting in deep cyclicals and financials, have underperformed their US peers. Small caps have also lagged their large cap brethren, while value stocks have trailed growth stocks (Chart 10). Chart 9Sectors Expected To Suffer From A Pandemic-Induced Downturn Have, In Fact, Suffered Chart 10Non-US Stocks, Small Caps, And Value Stocks Have Underperformed Tech stocks are overrepresented in growth indices, which helps explain why growth has outperformed value. Tech companies also tend to carry little debt while sporting large cash holdings. Companies with strong balance sheets have greatly outperformed companies with weak ones since the start of the year (Chart 11). Chart 11Firms With Strong Balance Sheets Have Excelled Relative To Weak Ones Chart 12Real Rates Have Come Down This Year In addition, growth companies have disproportionately benefited from the dramatic decline in real interest rates (Chart 12). A drop in the discount rate raises the present value of a stream of cash flows more the further out in time those cash flows are expected to be realized.   What Low Bond Yields Are Telling Us Doesn’t the decline in real long-term interest rates signal that future economic growth will be considerably weaker? If so, doesn’t this nullify the benefit to growth companies in particular, and the stock market in general, from a lower discount rate? Not necessarily! While lockdowns have led to a temporary drop in aggregate supply, they have not severely undermined the long-term productive capacity of the economy. Unlike during a war, no factories have been destroyed. And while heightened unemployment could lead to some atrophying of skills, the human capital base has remained largely intact. Chart 13 shows that output-per-worker eventually returned to its long-term trend following the Great Depression. Chart 13No Clear Evidence That The Great Depression Lowered Long-Term Trend Growth What the pandemic has done is made some forms of capital obsolete. We probably will not need as many cruise ships or airplanes as we once thought. But these items are not a huge part of the capital stock. And while some brick and mortar stores will disappear, this was part of a long-term shift toward a digital economy – a shift that has been raising productivity levels, rather than lowering them. Demand Is The Bigger Issue So why have long-term real interest rates fallen so much? The answer has more to do with demand than supply. Investors are betting that the pandemic will force central banks to keep interest rates at ultra-low levels for a very long period of time. All things equal, such an extended period of low rates might be necessary if the pandemic causes households to increase precautionary savings and prompts businesses to cut back on investment spending for an extended period of time. All things are not equal, however. As discussed in greater detail in Box 1, if real interest rates fall by enough, aggregate demand could still return to levels consistent with full employment since lower interest rates would discourage savings while encouraging capital expenditures. What if interest rates cannot fall by enough because of the zero-lower bound? In that case, fiscal policy would have to pick up the slack. Either taxes would need to be cut so that the private sector becomes more eager to spend, or the government would need to undertake more spending directly on goods and services. When interest rates are close to zero, worries about debt sustainability diminish since debt can be rolled over at little cost. In the end, the economy could end up in a new post-pandemic equilibrium where real interest rates are lower and fiscal deficits are larger. Applying Theory To Practice Framed in this light, we can make sense of what has happened over the past few months. The drop in long-term bond yields in February and early March was driven by falling inflationary expectations and rising financial stress. Yields then briefly jumped in mid-March as panicky investors dumped bonds in a mad scramble to raise cash. Not surprisingly, stocks suffered during this period. The Federal Reserve reacted to this turmoil by cutting rates to zero. It also initiated large-scale asset purchases, which injected much needed cash into the markets. In addition, the Fed dusted off the alphabet soup of programs created during the financial crisis, while launching a few new ones in an effort to increase the availability of credit and reduce funding costs. Other central banks also eased aggressively. As Chart 14 illustrates with a set of simple examples, even a modest decline in long-term interest rates has the power to significantly raise the present value of future cash flows. To compliment the easing in monetary policy, governments loosened fiscal policy (Chart 15). The point of the stimulus was not to raise GDP. After all, governments wanted most non-essential workers to remain at home. What fiscal easing did do was allow many struggling households and businesses to meet their financial obligations, while hopefully having enough income left over to generate some pent-up demand for when businesses did reopen their doors. Chart 14What Happens To Earnings During A Recessionary Shock? Chart 15Will It Be Enough? Ultimately, equity investors are hoping for an outcome where fiscal policy is eased by enough to eventually restore full employment while interest rates stay low well beyond that point in order to induce the private sector to keep spending: A win-win combination for stocks. Chart 16Gold Prices Move In The Opposite Direction To Real Rates The discussion above can also explain the divergent moves in commodity prices. Most industrial metals are consumed not long after they are produced. This makes industrial metal prices highly sensitive to the state of the global business cycle. In contrast, almost all of the gold that has ever been unearthed is still around. This makes gold an anticipatory asset whose price reflects expectations about future demand. Since owning gold does not generate any income, the opportunity cost of holding gold is simply the interest rate (Chart 16). When real interest rates rise, as they did briefly in early March when deflationary fears intensified, gold prices tend to fall. When real interest rates decline, as they did after central banks slashed rates and restarted large-scale QE programs, gold prices tend to rise. Investment Conclusions The current environment bears a passing resemblance to the one that prevailed in late 2008. Following the stock market crash in the wake of Lehman’s bankruptcy, the S&P 500 rallied by 24% between November 20, 2008 and January 6, 2009 to reach a level of 935. Had you bought stocks on that day in January, you still would have made good money over a 12-month horizon. However, you would have lost money over a 3-month horizon since the S&P 500 ultimately dropped to as low as 667 on March 6. During that painful first quarter of 2009, the economic surprise index remained firmly below zero, while earnings estimates continued to drift lower, just like today (Chart 17). As noted above, we do not expect stocks to take out their March 2020 lows, but a temporary sell-off would not surprise us, especially against a backdrop where a second wave of the pandemic looks increasingly likely. Chart 17Is Today A Replay Of Late 2008/Early 2009? Chart 18Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon Despite our near-term concerns, we continue to think that stocks will outperform bonds over a 12-month horizon. The equity risk premium remains elevated, particularly outside the US (Chart 18). While non-US stocks do not have as much exposure to tech and health care, they do benefit from very cheap valuations. European banks are trading at washed out levels (Chart 19). The cyclically-adjusted PE ratio for EM stocks is near record lows (Chart 20). Investors should consider increasing exposure to non-US equities if global growth begins to reaccelerate this summer. Chart 19European Banks Are Trading At Washed Out Levels Chart 20EM Stocks Are Very Cheap Given our view that central banks want real rates to stay low and will refrain from tightening monetary policy even if inflation eventually begins to rise, investors should maintain above-average exposure to gold. A weaker US dollar later this year will also help bullion. Box 1The Role Of Monetary And Fiscal Policy Following Savings Shocks Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Risks To The U,” dated May 7, 2020. 2  Charlie D’Agata, “Oxford scientists say a vaccine may be widely available by September,” cbsnews (April 30, 2020). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Highlights Fear of deflation – especially at current debt levels – will keep central-bank policy looser for longer. As a result, monetary authorities will do whatever it takes to revive inflation and inflation expectations to move policy rates away from the zero lower bound. EM income growth will rebound, and the US dollar will weaken as monetary and fiscal stimulus reach the real economy. This will be bullish for commodities, including gold. Over the medium to long term, the reversal in globalization and the atrophy of working-age populations will be inflationary: Labor markets will tighten as economic growth recovers and baby-boomers continue to retire, pushing wages higher and savings lower. Over the short term, we are neutral gold from a pricing standpoint, and believe $1,700/oz is close to fair value. When gold pushes through $1,800/oz, longer-term demographic and economic trends will become apparent and will catalyze gold’s rally. We continue to favor gold as a portfolio hedge, as it has held value throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and the re-emergence of geopolitical tensions, particularly the return of Sino-US trade acrimony. Feature Gold will remain at ~ $1,700/oz after rallying 15% from its mid-March bottom, as markets consolidate over the short term. This new equilibrium has been fueled by North American retail investors and is slightly above our model’s fair value (Chart of the Week). While gold’s short-term price drivers appear to have stabilized over the past few weeks – i.e. real rates, US dollar, and equity uncertainty are holding fairly steady – a temporary pullback is likely. Strategically, however, the balance of risks is skewed to the upside. Chart of the WeekRetail Investment Demand Supports Gold Above Our Fair-Value Estimates Our usual framework classifies gold’s drivers into three broad categories: Demand for inflation hedges; Monetary and financial aggregates; and Demand for portfolio-diversification assets. In this report, we are narrowing our focus to concentrate on the tactical vs. strategic drivers of gold prices, to assess the metal’s upside potential over the short- and long-term horizons (Table 1). Table 1Short- vs. Long-Term Drivers Of Gold Prices Over the short-term, gold prices fluctuate mostly with changes in risk aversion, opportunity costs and relative prices vis-à-vis other assets. Longer term, gold prices trend with income and inflation cycles, along with structural changes in households’ savings rates. Short- and Medium-term Drivers Elevated global uncertainty and falling US real rates are keeping total gold demand resilient in the West. Western Buyers To The Rescue The COVID-19 pandemic greatly altered the composition of gold demand in 1Q20. Jewellery and bar-and-coin demand dropped 42% and 11% y/y in the wake of a collapse of Chinese and Indian demand (Chart 2, panel 1). This was offset by sharp inflows to ETF products – mainly from DM investors. ETF inflows increased by ~ 300 tons in 1Q20, and by 170 tons in April 2020 (Chart 2, panel 3). Elevated global uncertainty and falling US real rates are keeping total gold demand resilient in the West. However, the short-term outlook for gold could be volatile as investment and jewellery demand normalize. As economies reopen, we expect economic uncertainty will fade, which will bring retail and speculative gold demand down in the West, while a recovery in EM economic activity will revive jewellery, bar and coin demand. Chart 2Weak EM Consumer Demand Offset By Strong North America ETF Inflows Chart 3Investment Demand Overtakes Jewellery's Since 2010, investment and jewellery demand represented ~ 33% and ~ 58%, respectively, of total gold demand – excluding central bank net purchases (Chart 3). As economies reopen, we expect economic uncertainty will fade, which will bring retail and speculative gold demand down in the West, while a recovery in EM economic activity will revive jewellery, bar and coin demand – albeit at a slower pace (Chart 4). NB: A large mismatch in the speed of these adjustments could lead to an undershoot in prices – especially at current elevated positioning. Chart 4Elevated Interests In Gold From Retail Investors Chart 5Investors Allocation To Gold Is Close To 2012 Levels We’ve argued in February there was still an opportunity for investment-led growth to support prices based on the low value of investors’ total holdings of gold compared to global equities on a market-cap basis. This measure is now approaching its 2012 peak and moving toward unknown territory in terms of portfolio and wealth allocation to gold (Chart 5). This is flagging up a risk that short-term traders will want to take profits on their speculative positions, if virus-related uncertainty diminishes. On the other hand, retail buyers could hold on to their hedges. Historically, profound economic dislocations and persistent uncertainty have been complemented by shifts in investors’ behavior, leading to higher average saving rates – e.g. 1929, WWII, 2008’s GFC – (Chart 6). Additionally, downside risks to the reopening of economies worldwide remain significant, particularly given the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic’s evolution: A second wave of contagion would trigger a massive flight to safety and further central bank actions to keep rates depressed. Chart 6Precautionary Savings Rise In Highly Uncertain Periods Awaiting A Setback To The USD The Fed and other systemically important central banks have taken decisive action to keep money markets functioning and to prevent a solvency crisis (Chart 7, panel 1). Ample liquidity, low economic growth, and collapsing inflation expectations pushed bond yields lower globally, which, in large measure, powered the rally in gold prices (Chart 7, panel 2). The protection offered by US bonds is much weaker at the lower bound. This will benefit gold as a safe-haven asset if uncertainty intensifies this year. In recent weeks, US yields have stabilized, meaning this factor will not provide much support to gold at current levels – assuming, again, no major second wave in COVID-19 contagion. The upside to rates is also limited over the short term as the increase in Treasury supply will be offset by the Fed’s dovish forward rate guidance. Still, the protection offered by US bonds is much weaker at the lower bound. This will benefit gold as a safe-haven asset if uncertainty intensifies this year (e.g., ahead of the US elections). Moreover, the Fed appears to be willing to risk remaining behind the curve for the foreseeable future. Bonds' protection would suffer if the Fed allows inflation overshoot (more on this below). In 2H20, we expect the USD to weaken as virus-related safe-haven demand – which fueled its 14% rally ytd vs. EM currencies – abates and the Fed’s and the US government’s responses to the crisis floods markets globally with USD liquidity.1 Relative balance-sheet and interest-rate dynamics will reassert themselves as important drivers of currency movements (Chart 8). Chart 7QE Infinity Will Keep Bond Yields Depressed Chart 8USD Deviating From Interest Rate Differentials The tailwinds from declining US real rates ended and a decline in virus-related uncertainty will be offset by the positive effect of a weaker dollar. A temporary pullback is likely. Bottom Line: The sum of gold’s short-term drivers are neutral at the current $1,700/oz equilibrium. The tailwinds from declining US real rates ended and a decline in virus-related uncertainty will be offset by the positive effect of a weaker dollar. A temporary pullback is likely. Long-term Drivers The underlying trend in gold prices will remain positive, supported by accelerating EM income growth over the next 12 months. Stimulative Policies To Boost EM Income Growth Global income growth is one of the core drivers of gold prices over long horizons (Chart 9, panel 1). As countries get wealthier, the pool of savings rises, which benefits gold, along with most financial assets. Because gold-mining production growth is relatively stable and inelastic to prices in the short-term, changes in income growth above production growth have a crucial influence on gold’s trajectory over the long run. EM countries – chiefly China and India – are the largest buyers of jewellery, bars and coins, and remain among the fastest-growing economies on the planet. Hence, since 2000, gold’s annual price change correlates strongly with their income growth (Chart 9, panel 2). In addition, central banks’ net gold purchases – which have been increasingly positive since 2009 – effectively reduce available supply to consumers. We include net purchases in our measure of total supply to separate it from consumer and investor demand – which respond to entirely different incentives (Chart 9, panel 3). We expect EM central banks will continue diversifying part of their US dollar reserves to gold.2 Chart 9Global Income Growth Drives Long Term Gold Returns Chart 10China's Economic Activity Close To Pre-COVID-19 Levels The underlying trend in gold prices will remain positive, supported by accelerating EM income growth over the next 12 months. China’s economic activity appears to have partly recovered from the COVID-19 shock (Chart 10). Going forward, the country’s surging fiscal and monetary stimulus, in addition to a weakening US dollar, will revive growth in neighboring Asian economies this year. Structural Deflationary Pressures Are Easing We do not believe the lack of inflationary pressure post-GFC will be repeated this time. The stimulus is radically larger and geared more toward the real economy as opposed to rescuing the banking system. As we’ve argued in previous reports, gold acts as a good inflation hedge when there is an increase in perceived risks of significant overshoots.3 In normal times, inflation expectations move slowly and trend more or less with past inflation prints (Chart 11). However, the unprecedented global fiscal and monetary stimulus deployed to combat the COVID-19-induced recession could shift expectations rapidly and profoundly. We do not believe the lack of inflationary pressure post-GFC will be repeated this time. The stimulus is radically larger and geared more toward the real economy as opposed to rescuing the banking system (Chart 12). Moreover, a combination of deflationary structural factors – i.e. trade globalization, expanding global value chains, and demographics – are reversing, and will gradually become inflationary.4 This is a stark difference to the post-GFC quantitative easing. Chart 11Inflation Expectations Trend Along Past Realized Inflation Rates Chart 12Surging US Broad Money Supply Firstly, globalization’s deflationary impulse – thru increasing trade and expanding global value chains – stalled a few years ago (Chart 13). Recently, ramping anti-globalization policies amidst the Sino-US trade tensions exposed vulnerabilities in the current trade infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic risks accelerating these trends. Following widespread quarantine measures in China, US imports from China fell sharply in February and March, and firms without pre-established supply chain relationships with other Asian countries that could backstop supply disruptions were left unable to find alternative suppliers (Table 2). Firms will likely continue diversifying their supply sources and insource critical activities to the US, post-COVID-19.5 Additionally, our Geopolitical strategists see increasing risks of renewed US pressures on China ahead of the election.6 An acceleration in de-globalization trends post-COVID-19 will disrupt international supply chains and amplify inflationary pressures. Chart 13The Structural Reversal In Globalization Trends Will Be Inflationary   Table 2Vulnerability In US Supply Chains China’s declining support ratio also means the pool of cheap offshore labor for DM economies is shrinking. Secondly, structural demographic trends are reversing. The world’s support ratio – i.e. the number of workers per dependent – has been trending downward since 2015 (Chart 14, panel 1). As more people around the world reach retirement age, this trend is expected to continue. This trend is especially powerful in China, whose workforce was one of the great deflationary demographic factors in previous decades. Effectively, this implies aggregate demand is likely to exceed aggregate supply as more workers become consumers. In theory, this also implies lower global savings and a higher neutral rate of interest. Consequently, a rising neutral rate, combined with our belief central bankers will be behind the curve in raising rates, increases the risks of inflation moving sharply above target. Chart 14Demographic Trends Will Become Inflationary China’s declining support ratio also means the pool of cheap offshore labor for DM economies is shrinking – the country could lose ~ 400 million workers over the remainder of the century (Chart 14, panel 2). The integration of the Chinese – and other EM countries – workforce during the 2000s led to a doubling of the global pool of labor supply and reduced the average labor cost. Investment Conclusion Asset markets are not positioned for higher inflation, thus, investors seeking refuge ahead of a widespread re-pricing of inflation risk likely will benefit from current relatively inexpensive hedges. Investors need to assess the long-term consequences of these trends and policies vs. the short-term deflationary COVID-19 shock. Asset markets are not positioned for higher inflation, thus, investors seeking refuge ahead of a widespread re-pricing of inflation risk likely will benefit from current relatively inexpensive hedges (Chart 15). While we expect higher US inflation expectations and headline rates in 2H20 – driven by the decline in the USD and the increase in oil and base-metals’ prices – we do not expect meaningful inflation-overshoot risks until late 2021. Core inflation rates will remain depressed until the large labor-supply overhang clears – in the US and globally – and the effect of the lower USD pass-through to higher prices emerges (Chart 16). Chart 15Gold Is Not Relatively Expansive, Except Vs. Commodities Chart 16The COVID-19-Induced Deflationary Effects Will Last Until Next Year Re-anchoring expectations will necessitate periods of above-target inflation rates. The short-term drivers of gold are neutral at the current $1,700/oz equilibrium, as inflation pressure won’t surface until 2H21. Moreover, there is a non-negligible risk of a short-term pullback if DM economies are successfully reopened without significant increases in COVID-19 infection rates. This should serve as a buying opportunity, as the medium- and long-term outlook remains bullish for the yellow metal. EM income growth is poised to rebound as global monetary and fiscal stimulus reach the real economy and the USD depreciates. The reversal in globalization and demographic trends will become inflationary. Policymakers will do whatever it takes to revive inflation and inflation expectations to move away from the zero lower bound. Re-anchoring expectations will necessitate periods of above-target inflation rates. Thus, real rates should be contained as QE continues to depress the term premium and inflation starts to move higher. Fear of deflation – especially at current debt levels – will keep central banks too easy for too long.   Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Oil production globally is falling faster than expected, based on anecdotal press reports showing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) took an additional 1mm b/d of production off the market, bringing its total shut-in level to 7.5mm b/d for next month. The Saudi government urged OPEC 2.0 member states to follow its lead and reduce production further. The US EIA this week reported it expects Russia’s production to fall more than 800k b/d, while in the US production is expected to decline by a similar amount this year, and another 600k b/d in 2021. Canada’s production is expected to fall 400k b/d. Non-OPEC production overall is expected to fall 2.4mm b/d this year. We will be updating our supply-demand balances and prices forecasts in next week’s report. Base Metals: Neutral Steel markets are becoming concerned COVID-19-induced production declines will reduce iron-ore shipments. Earlier this month, 10 cities in the Brazilian state of Para, an ore-producing region, were placed under lockdown, according to FastMarkets MB, a sister publication of BCA Research. Even though ore mining and shipping have been exempted, concern that COVID-19 could reach the producing regions and affect output is growing. Benchmark 62% Fe ore is down 6.2% from its January highs (Chart 17). Precious Metals: Neutral A forecast by Australia’s Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (ISER) that Australia would become the world’s largest gold producer in 2021 was seconded this week by a private forecaster, Resources Monitor. The ISER forecast Australia would overtake China as the top gold producer in its March 2020 forecast, with output reaching 383 tons next year. Australia produced 326 tons last year, vs. China’s 380 tons. Ags/Softs:  Underweight The USDA released its first estimate for the 2020/2021 marketing year, projecting corn ending stocks at 3.318 Bn bushels for the season, the largest stockpile since 1987/1998 (Chart 18). Huge planting projections will outweigh increases in exports demand of 35 Mn bushels and in usage for ethanol biofuel of 5.2 Bn bushels compared to the current season. Nonetheless corn futures hedged higher on Tuesday, rising 5.25 cents/bu, as the weak outlook was offset by downward revisions to old crop inventories. Finally wheat’s ending stocks were moderately revised up for the current season, but futures still fell to the lowest in a week due to better than expected weather in the US and higher global stocks expectations. Chart 17Supply Constraints Could Boost Prices Chart 18USDA Expects Large US Corn Stocks Increase       Footnotes 1     We’ve outlined our view on the dollar for 2020 in our April 23, 2020 Weekly Report. Please see USD Strength Restrains Commodity Recovery, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 2     The U.S. dollar remains the reserve currency of the world today, but that exorbitant privilege is fading. 3    Please see our Weekly Report titled "All That Glitters ... And Then Some," published July 25, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4    For more details on these structural factors please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Reports titled "Troubling Implications Of Global Demographic Trends," and "Three Demographic Megatrends," published 28 February, 2019 and October 26, 2017.  5    Please see Sebastian Heise, “How Did China’s COVID-19 Shutdown Affect U.S. Supply Chains?,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, May 12, 2020. 6    Please see BCA's Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert titled "#WWIII," published May 1, 2020. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com.     Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Dear Client, With this weekly update on the Chinese economy, we are sending you a Special Report published by BCA Geopolitical Strategy team and authored by my colleague Matt Gertken. Lately we have been getting numerous questions from our clients, on the risk of a significant re-escalation in the US-China conflict. Matt’s report provides timely insights on the topic, and we trust you will find the report very helpful. Best regards, Jing Sima, China Strategist Feature An Update On The Chinese Economy Since mid-April, the speed of resumption in China’s domestic business activity has accelerated. Industrial enterprises appear to be operating at 87% of normal activity levels as of May 11, up from 81.8% one month ago. Small to medium-sized enterprise (SMEs) are estimated to now operate at 87.3% of their normal activity, a vast improvement from 82.3% just two weeks ago. Chart 1Pickup In M1 Still Modest The material easing in monetary conditions and strong flows of local government special-purpose bond issuance in the past two months helped jump start a recovery in the construction sector. But at this early stage of a domestic economic rebound and in the middle of a deep global economy recession, China’s corporate marginal propensity to invest remains muted (Chart 1). Household consumption showed some resilience during last week’s “Golden Week” holiday. The strength in big-ticket item purchases, however, was highly concentrated among consumers in China’s wealthiest urban areas (Chart 2). The COVID-19 pandemic has created a situation resembling a combination of SARS and the global financial crisis. Now the physical constraints on consumption have largely been lifted, consumers’ willingness to spend, after a brief period of compensatory spending, will be suppressed if their expectations of the medium-term job and income security remain pessimistic (Chart 3). Chart 2A Compensatory Rebound In Big-Ticket Item Sales Chart 3The Average Chinese Consumer Remains Cautious Next week we will publish a report, focusing on China’s consumption in a post-pandemic environment. Looking forward, we maintain the view that China’s business activity will pick up momentum in H2, when the massive monetary and fiscal stimuli continue working its way into the economy.  Downside risks to employment and income loom large, which makes it highly unlikely that the authorities will tighten their policy stance any time soon. As such, while we maintain our defensive tactical positioning due to near-term economic and geopolitical uncertainties, our view remains constructive on both the economy and Chinese financial asset prices in the next 6 to 12 months.  (Chart 4). Chart 4Recovery To Gain Traction In H2   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     #WWIII The phrase “World War III” or #WWIII went viral earlier this year in response to a skirmish between the US and Iran (Chart 1). Only four months later, the US and China are escalating a strategic rivalry that makes the Iran conflict look paltry by comparison (Chart 2). Chart 1US-Iran Tensions Were Just A Warm-Up Chart 2The Thucydides Trap Fortunately, the two great powers are constrained by the same mutually assured destruction that constrained the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They are also constrained by the desire to prevent their economies from collapsing further. Unfortunately, the intensity of their rivalry can escalate dramatically before reaching anything truly analogous to the Berlin Airlift or Cuban Missile Crisis – and these kinds of scenarios are not out of the question. Safe haven assets will catch a bid and the recovery in US and global risk assets since the COVID selloff will be halted. We maintain our defensive tactical positioning and will close two strategic trades to book profits and manage risk. In the wake of the pandemic and recession, geopolitics is the next shoe to drop. The War President Over the past 24 hours the White House has taken several steps indicating that President Trump is adopting the “war president” posture in the run-up to the US election: Export controls: Trump has gone forward with new export controls on “dual-purpose” technologies – those that have military as well as civilian applications, in a delayed reaction to China’s policy of civil-military technological fusion. The Commerce Department has wide leeway in whether to grant export licenses under the rule – but it is a consequential rule and would be disruptive if enforced strictly. Supply chain de-risking: Trump is also going forward with new restrictions on the import of foreign parts for US power plants and electricity grid. The purpose is to remove risks from critical US infrastructure. COVID investigation: Trump has hinted that the novel coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease may have originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Director of National Intelligence issued a statement indicating that the Intelligence Community does not view the virus as man-made (not a bio-weapon), but is investigating the potential that the virus transferred to humans at the institute. The State Department had flagged the institute for risky practices long before COVID. Trump avoided the bio-weapon conspiracy theory and is focused on the hypothesis that the laboratory’s investigations into rare coronaviruses led to the outbreak. New tariffs instead of reparations: Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow denied that the US would stop making interest and principal payments on some Chinese holdings of US treasuries. He said that the “full faith and credit of the United States’ debt obligation is sacrosanct. Absolutely sacrosanct.” Trump denied that this form of reparations, first floated by Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, was under consideration. Instead he suggested that new tariffs would be much more effective, raising the threat for the first time since the Phase One trade deal was agreed in principle in December. Strategic disputes: Tensions have flared up in specific, concrete ways across the range of US-Chinese relations – in the cyber-realm, psychological warfare, Korean peninsula, Taiwan Strait, and South China Sea. These could lead to sanctions. The war president posture is one in which President Trump recognizes that reelection is extremely unlikely in an environment of worse than -4.8% economic growth and likely 16% unemployment. Therefore he shifts the basis of his reelection to an ongoing crisis and appeals to Americans’ patriotism and desire for continuity amid crisis. Bottom Line: Protectionism is not guaranteed to work, and therefore it was not ultimately the path Trump took last year when he still believed a short-term trade deal could boost the economy. Now the bar to protectionism has been lowered. The Decline Of US-China Relations President Trump may still be bluffing, China may take a conciliatory posture, and a massive cold war-style escalation may be avoided. However, it is imprudent to buy risk assets on these reasons today, when the S&P 500’s forward price-to-earnings ratio stands at 20.15. It is more prudent to prepare for a historic escalation of tensions first, buy insurance, then reassess. Why? Because the trajectory of US-China relations is empirically worsening over time. US household deleveraging and the Chinese shift away from export-manufacturing (Chart 3) broke the basis of strong relations during the US’s distractions in Iraq and Afghanistan and China’s “peaceful rise” in the early 2000s. US consumers grew thriftier while Chinese wages rose. Not only has China sought economic self-sufficiency as a strategic objective since General Secretary Xi Jinping took power in 2012, but the Great Recession, Trump trade war, and global pandemic have accelerated the process of decoupling between the two economies. Decoupling is an empirical phenomenon, and it has momentum, however debatable its ultimate destination (Chart 4). Obviously policy at the moment is accelerating decoupling. Chart 3The Great Economic Divorce Chart 4Decoupling Is Empirical The US threat to cease payments on some of China’s Treasury holdings is an inversion of the fear that prevailed in the wake of 2008, that China would sell its treasuries to diversify away from dependence on the US and the greenback. China did end up selling its treasuries, but the US was not punished with higher interest rates because other buyers appeared. The US remains the world’s preponderant power and ultimate safe haven (Chart 5). By the same token, Trump and Kudlow naturally poured water on the threat of arbitrarily stopping payments because that would jeopardize America’s position. Instead Trump is threatening a new round of trade tariffs. Since the US runs a large trade deficit with China, and China is more exposed to trade generally, the US has the upper hand on this front. But it is important to notice that US tariff collections as a share of imports bottomed under President Obama (Chart 6). Chart 5Treasuries Can't Be Weaponized By Either Side... Chart 6... But Tariffs Can And Will Be   The US shift away from free trade toward protectionism occurred in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. President Trump then popularized and accelerated this policy option in an aggressive and unorthodox way. Trade tariffs are a tool of American statecraft, not the whim of a single person, who may exit the White House in January 2021 anyway. The retreat from globalization is not a passing fancy. Today’s recession also marks the official conclusion of China’s historic 44 year economic boom – and hence a concrete blow to the legitimacy of the ruling Communist Party (Chart 7). The more insular, autarkic shift in the Communist Party’s thinking is not irreversible, but there are no clear signs that Xi Jinping is pivoting toward liberalism after eight years in power. Chart 7Recession Destabilizes The 'G2' Powers China’s unemployment rate has been estimated as high as 20.5% by Zhongtai Securities, which then retracted the estimate (!). It is at least at 10%. Moreover 51 million migrant workers vanished from the job rolls in the first quarter of the year. Maximum employment is the imperative of East Asian governments, especially the Communist Party, which has not dealt with joblessness since the late 1990s. The threat to social and political stability is obvious. The party will take extraordinary measures to maintain stability – not only massive stimulus but also social repression and foreign policy distraction to ensure that people rally around the flag. Xi Jinping has tried to shift the legitimacy of the party from economic growth to nationalism and consumerism, the “China Dream.” But the transition to consumer growth was supposed to be smooth. Financial turmoil, the trade war, and now pandemic and recession have forced the Communist Party off the training wheels well before it intended. Xi’s communist ideology, economic mercantilism, and assertive foreign policy have created an international backlash. The US is obviously indulging in nationalism as well. A stark increase in inequality and political polarization exploded in President Trump’s surprise election on a nationalist and protectionist platform in 2016 (Chart 8). All candidates bashed China on the campaign trail, but Trump was an anti-establishment leader who disrupted corporate interests and followed through with his tariff threats. The result is that the share of Americans who see China’s power and influence as a “major threat” to the United States has grown from around 50% during the halcyon days of cooperation to over 60% today. Those who see it as a minor threat have shrunk to about a quarter of the population (Chart 9). Chart 8A Measure Of Inequality In The US Chart 9US Nationalism On The Rise Chart 10Broad-Based Anti-China Sentiment In US As with US tariff policy, the bipartisan nature of US anger toward China is significant. More than 60% of Democrats and more than 50% of young people have an unfavorable view of China. College graduates have a more negative opinion than the much-discussed non-college-educated populace (Chart 10). Already it is clear, in Joe Biden’s attack ads against Trump, that this election is about who can sound tougher on China. The debate is over who has the better policy to put “America first,” not whether to put America first. Biden will try to steal back the protectionist thunder that enabled Trump to break the blue wall in the electorally pivotal Rust Belt in 2016 (Map 1). Biden will have to win over these voters by convincing them that he understands and empathizes with their Trumpian outlook on jobs, outsourcing, and China’s threats to national security. He will emphasize other crimes – carbon emissions, cyber attacks, human rights violations – but they will still be China’s crimes. He will return to the “Pivot to Asia” foreign policy of his most popular supporter, former President Barack Obama. Map 1US Election: Civil War Lite Bottom Line: Economic slowdown and autocracy in China, unprecedented since the Cultural Revolution, is clashing with the United States. Broad social restlessness in the US that is resolving into bipartisan nationalism against a peer competitor, unprecedented since the struggle with the Soviets in the 1960s, is clashing with China. Now is not the time to assume global stability. Constraints Still Operate, But Buy Insurance The story outlined above is by this time pretty well known. But the “Phase One” trade deal allowed global investors to set aside this secular story at the beginning of the year. Now, as Trump threatens tariffs again, the question is whether he will resort to sweeping, concrete, punitive measures against China that will take on global significance – i.e. that will drive the financial markets this year. Trump is still attempting to restore his bull market and magnificent economy. As long as this is the case, a constraint on conflict operates this year. It is just not as firm or predictable. Therefore we are looking for three things. First, will President Trump’s approval rating benefit so much from his pressure tactics on China that he finds himself driven into greater pressure tactics? This raises the risk of policy mistakes. Second, will Trump’s approval rating fall into the doldrums, stuck beneath 43%, as the toll of the recession wears on him and popular support during the health crisis fades? “Lame duck” status would essentially condemn him to electoral loss and incentivize him to turn the tables by escalating the conflict with China. Chart 11Trump May Seek A Crisis ‘Bounce’ To Popularity Presidents are not very popular these days, but a comparison with Trump’s two predecessors shows that while he can hardly obtain the popularity boost that Obama received just before the 2012 election, he could hope for something at least comparable to what George W. Bush received amid the invasion of Iraq (Chart 11). (Trump has generally been capped at 46% approval, the same as his share of the popular vote in 2016.) The reason this is a real risk, not a Shakespearean play, is outlined above: however cynical Trump’s political calculus, he would be reasserting US grand strategy in the face of a great power that is attempting to set up a regional empire from which, eventually, to mount a global challenge. Thus if he is convinced he cannot win the election anyway, this risk becomes material. Investors should take seriously any credible reports suggesting that Trump is growing increasingly frustrated with his trailing Biden in head-to-head polls in the swing states. Third, will China, under historic internal stress, react in a hostile way that drives Trump down the path of confrontation? China has so far resorted to propaganda, aircraft carrier drills around the island of Taiwan, and maritime encroachments in the South China Sea – none of which is intolerably provocative to Trump. A depreciation of the renminbi, a substantial change to the status quo in the East or South China Seas, or an attempt to vitiate US security guarantees regarding US allies in the region, could trigger a major geopolitical incident. A fourth Taiwan Strait crisis is fully within the realm of possibility, especially given that Taiwan’s “Silicon Shield” is fundamentally at stake. While we dismissed rumors of Kim Jong Un’s death in North Korea, any power vacuum or struggle for influence there is of great consequence in today’s geopolitical context. Aggressive use of tariffs always threatened to disrupt global trade and financial markets, but tariffs function differently in the context of a global economic expansion and bull market, as in 2018-19, than they do in the context of a deep and possibly protracted recession. Trump has a clear political incentive to be tough on China, but an equally clear financial and economic incentive to limit sweeping punitive measures and avoid devastating the stock market and economy. If events lower the economic hurdle, then the political incentive will prevail and financial markets will sell. Bottom Line: However small the risk of Trump enacting sweeping tariffs, the downside is larger than in the 2018-19 period. The stock market might fall by 40%-50% rather than 20% in an all-out trade war this year. Investment Takeaways Go tactically long US 10-year treasuries. Book a 9.7% profit on our long 30-year US TIPS trade. Close long global equities (relative to US) for a loss of 3.8%.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights COVID-19 & The Economy: Australia is now in its first recession in 30 years, thanks to lockdown measures to contain the spread of COVID-19. Yet the nation’s rates of infection and death from the virus are relatively low, which should allow for a faster reopening of the domestic economy. Policy Responses: The RBA has taken extraordinary measures to cushion the blow from the lockdowns, like cutting policy rates to near-0% and capping shorter maturity bond yields through quantitative easing. The Australian government has also been aggressive in providing fiscal stimulus. These measures give the economy a better chance of seeing a “v”-shaped recovery as the lockdown restrictions are eased. Fixed Income Strategy: Downgrade Australian government bonds to neutral within global fixed income portfolios: the RBA has little room to cut rates, inflation expectations are too low and the structural convergence to global yields is largely complete. Favor inflation-linked bonds and investment grade corporate debt over government debt, as both now offer better value. Feature Chart 1The Australian Bond Yield Convergence Story Is Over Australia has a well-deserved reputation as a wonderful place to live, regularly sitting near the top of annual “world’s most livable countries” lists. A big reason for that is the stability of the economy, which has famously not suffered a recession since 1991. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed that happy economic story, with Australia now in the midst of a deep recession. Yet even during this uncertain time, Australia is living up to its reputation as a livable country, with one of the lowest rates of COVID-19 infection among the major economies. This potentially sets up Australia as an economy that can recover from the pandemic – and the growth-crushing measures used to contain its spread - more quickly than harder-hit countries like the US and Italy. For global fixed income investors, Australia has also been a very pleasant place to spend some time. The local bond market has enjoyed a stellar bull run since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, with policy rates and yields converging to much lower global levels (Chart 1). We have steadfastly maintained a structural overweight recommendation on Australian government bonds since December 2017. Over that time, the benchmark yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Australia government bond index declined -168bps, delivering a total return of +17.6% (in local currency terms). That soundly outperformed the global government benchmark index by 5.7 percentage points (in USD-hedged terms). However, just like the nation’s recession-free streak, Australia’s status as a secular bond outperformer is coming to an end. Just like the nation’s recession-free streak, Australia’s status as a secular bond outperformer is coming to an end. In this Special Report, we take a closer look at the Australian economy and fixed income landscape after the shock of the global pandemic. Our main conclusion is that most of the juice has been squeezed out of the Australian government bond yield global convergence trade. There are, however, some interesting opportunities still available in other parts of the Australian fixed income universe, like corporates and inflation-linked bonds. Yes, Recessions Can Actually Happen In Australia Chart 2A V-Shaped Recovery Is Widely Expected During the record streak of recession-free growth in Australia, the annual growth of real GDP has never dipped below 1.1%. The fact that a recession was avoided in 2009, given the degree of the shock from the Global Financial Crisis, is a testament to the balance within the Australian economy; consumer spending is 55% of GDP, business investment is 12%, government spending is 24% and exports are 25%. This stands out in contrast to more imbalanced economies like the US (where consumer spending is 70% of GDP) and Germany (where exports are 47% of GDP). Yet the unique nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has forced shutdowns across the entire economy, has nullified that advantage for Australia. There is no part of the economy that can avoid a major slowdown to help prevent a full-blown recession in 2020. Yet while expectations have adjusted to this new short-term reality, there appears to be a broad consensus that this Australian recession will be a short-lived “V” rather than an extended “U”. That can be seen in the forecasts of the Bloomberg Consensus survey and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), both of which are calling for a year-over-year decline in real GDP growth of at least -7% in Q2/2020. That will represent the low point of the recession, with growth expected to steadily recover over the subsequent year, with annual real GDP growth reaching +7% by the second quarter of 2021 (Chart 2). The Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index suffered the single greatest monthly decline in the 47-year history of the series in April. Yet there was only a modest decline in the longer-run expectations component of that survey, which remains above recent cyclical lows (bottom panel) This is a message consistent with the RBA and Bloomberg consensus forecasts, where economic resiliency is expected. One reason for that relative optimism among Australian consumers is that COVID-19 has not hit the country as hard as other nations. A recent survey of Australian consumers conducted by McKinsey in April showed that 65% of respondents named “the Australian economy” as their biggest COVID-19 related concern. At the same time, only 33% of those surveyed cited “not being able to make ends meet” as their main worry related to the virus (Chart 3). Other responses to the survey showed a similar divide, with greater concern shown for the state of the overall Australian nation compared to worries about one’s own economic or health outlook. Chart 3Australians Worrying More About The Nation Than Their Own Situation For an economy that has not seen a recession in over a generation, a relative lack of concern over one’s own financial health – even in a global pandemic that has paralyzed the world economy – may not be that surprising. Another reason for that relative optimism is that Australia has, so far, escaped relatively unscathed from the spread of COVID-19 compared to other nations. Australia has, so far, escaped relatively unscathed from the spread of COVID-19 compared to other nations. The number of new daily COVID-19 cases is now only 1 per million people, according to the Johns Hopkins University data on the virus. This is down from the peak of 20 per million people reached on March 28, and substantially below the numbers seen in countries more severely struck by the virus like the US and Italy (Chart 4). Australia has also seen a relatively low fatality rate from the virus, with only 1.4% of confirmed cases resulting in deaths (Chart 5). Chart 4The COVID-19 Wave Has Crested Down Under Chart 5Australia Has Weathered The Pandemic Much Better Than Others Given these low rates of infection and death, it is likely that Australia will be able to reopen its economy faster than other nations. The Australian government has already announced an easing of the COVID-19 lockdown measures, which will include the opening of restaurants (with limited seating) and schools (on a staggered schedule). There is even talk of creating a “trans-Tasman travel bubble” with neighboring New Zealand, which has similarly low rates of COVID-19 infection. Yet even when Australians can begin resuming a more “normal” life, the backdrop for consumer spending will be constrained by relatively low income growth and high consumer debt levels (Chart 6). Real consumer spending has struggled to grow faster than 2-3% over the past decade and, with household debt now up to a staggering 190% of disposable income, a faster pace of spending is unlikely even as the economy reopens. Chart 6Weak Consumer Fundamentals Chart 7Australian Businesses Are Retrenching Among the other parts of the Australian economy, the near-term outlook is gloomy, but there are potential areas where the damage to growth could be more limited. Capital Spending Business fixed investment has been flat in real terms over the past year. With corporate profit growth already slowing rapidly and likely to contract because of the recession, firms will look to cut back on capital spending to preserve cash, leading to a bigger drag on overall growth from investment (Chart 7). According to the latest National Australia Bank business survey conducted in March, confidence has collapsed to lower levels than seen during the Global Financial Crisis, while capital spending and employment expectations have also declined sharply – trends that had already started before the COVID-19 breakout. Chart 8No Rebound In Housing Housing The housing market has long been a source of both strength and vulnerability for the Australian economy. While the days of double-digit growth in house prices are in the past, thanks to greater restrictions on banks for mortgage lending and worsening affordability, Australian housing was showing signs of life before the COVID-19 outbreak. National house prices were up +2.8% on a year-over-year basis in Q4/2019, while building approvals were stabilizing (Chart 8). That nascent housing rebound was choked off by the virus, with the Westpac-Melbourne Institute “good time to buy a home” survey plunging 30 points in April to the lowest level since February 2008. While the RBA’s interest rate cuts over the past decade have helped lower borrowing costs in Australia, the gap between the RBA cash rate and variable mortgage rates has been steadily widening (bottom panel). This suggests a worsening transmission from monetary policy into the most interest-sensitive parts of the economy like housing. Australian banks have been more stringent on mortgage lending standards over the past couple of years, which likely explains some of the widening gap between the RBA cash rate and mortgage rates. However, Australian banks have also seen an increase in their funding costs over that same period, both for onshore measures like the Bank Bill Swap Rate and offshore indicators like cross-currency basis swaps (Chart 9). Those funding costs have plunged in recent weeks, in response to the RBA’s aggressive monetary policy easing measures to help mitigate the hit to growth from COVID-19. The US Federal Reserve’s decision to activate a $60 billion currency swap line with the RBA back in March also helped reduce offshore funding costs for Australian banks. It is possible that the easing of funding costs could make banks more willing to make consumer and mortgage loans in the coming months, at lower interest rates, as the lockdown restrictions ease. This could help improve the transmission from easy RBA monetary policy to economic activity. Exports Demand for Australian exports was already starting to soften in the first few months of 2020. The year-over-year growth in total exports fell to 9.7% in March from a peak of 18.7% in July 2019. Exports to China, Australia’s largest trade partner, have held up better than non-Chinese exports (Chart 10). This was largely due to increased Chinese demand for Australian iron ore earlier in the year. Chart 9Bank Funding Pressures Have Diminished Iron ore prices have been declining more recently, but remain surprisingly elevated given the sharp contraction in global economic activity since March. This may be a sign that China’s reawakening from its own COVID-19 lockdowns, combined with more monetary and fiscal stimulus measures from Chinese policymakers, is putting a floor under the demand for Australian exports to China. Chart 10Australian Exports Will Not Rebound Anytime Soon Summing it all up, a major near-term economic contraction in Australia is unavoidable, but a relatively quick rebound could happen as domestic quarantine measures are lifted – especially given the significant amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus put in place by the RBA and the Australian government. Bottom Line: Australia is now in its first recession in 30 years, thanks to lockdown measures to contain the spread of COVID-19. Yet the nation’s rates of infection and death from the virus are relatively low, which should allow for a faster reopening of the domestic economy. A Powerful Policy Response To The Recession Almost every government and central bank in the world has introduced fiscal stimulus or monetary easing measures in response to the COVID-19 economic downturn. Australia’s policymakers have been particularly aggressive, both on the monetary and (especially) fiscal side. Monetary Policy The RBA has announced a variety of measures since late March to ease financial conditions and provide more liquidity to the economy, including: cutting the cash rate by 50bps to 0.25% the introduction of quantitative easing for the first time, buying government bonds in enough quantity in secondary markets to keep the yield on 3-year Australian government debt around 0.25% introducing a Term Funding Facility for the banking system under which authorized deposit-taking institutions can get funding from the RBA for three years at a rate of 0.25%, with additional funding available to increase lending to small and medium-sized businesses an increase in the amount and maturity of daily reverse repurchase (repo) operations, to support liquidity in the financial system setting up the currency swap line with the US Fed, providing US dollar liquidity to market participants in Australia. The RBA’s decisions on cutting the cash rate the 0.25%, and capping 3-year bond yields at the same level, sent a strong message to the markets that monetary policy must be highly accommodative until the threat of COVID-19 has passed. Fixed income markets have taken notice, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year Australian government bond falling from 1.30% just before the RBA announced the easing measures on March 19th to a low of 0.68% on April 1st. The yield has since rebounded to 0.95%, but this remains well below the level prevailing before the RBA eased. Those low interest rates have also helped to keep monetary conditions easy by dampening the attractiveness, and value, of the Australian dollar. The currency has historically been driven by three factors – interest rate differentials, commodity prices and global investor risk-aversion. With the RBA’s relentless rate cuts over the past decade, capped off by the measures introduced two months ago, the dominant factor on the currency has become interest rate differentials between Australia and other countries (Chart 11). The Aussie dollar has enjoyed a bounce as global equity markets have rebounded since the collapse in March, but remains well below levels implied by the RBA Commodity Price Index. The implication is that the upside in the currency will be capped by the RBA’s interest rate stance, which has taken all the formerly attractive carry out of the Aussie dollar. The RBA will need to maintain an accommodative stance for some time, as inflation – and inflation expectations – are likely to remain well below the central bank’s 2-3% target range. The RBA will need to maintain an accommodative stance for some time, as inflation – and inflation expectations – are likely to remain well below the central bank’s 2-3% target range. The new baseline forecast by the RBA calls for the Australian unemployment rate to double from 5.2% in Q1/2020 to 10% in Q2/2020, before drifting back down to 8.5% by Q2/2021 (Chart 12). The central bank sees the jobless rate returning to 6.5% in Q2/2022, but that will still not be enough to push headline or core CPI inflation back above 2% (middle panel). Chart 11Interest Rates Are The Main Driver Of The AUD Now Chart 12Inflation Is Dormant Down Under Inflation expectations have discounted a similar outcome. The Union Officials’ and Market Economists’ surveys of 2-year-ahead inflation expectations are both now under 2%. Market-based measures like the 2-year CPI swap rate are even more pessimistic, priced at a mere 0.12%! The recent plunge in oil prices is clearly playing a role in that extreme CPI swap pricing, but until there is some recover in market-based inflation expectations, the RBA will be unable to move away from its current emergency policy easing measures. Fiscal Policy The Australian government has been very aggressive in its economic support measures, including1: a so-called “JobKeeper Payment” to allow businesses to cover employee wages direct income support payments to individuals and households allowing temporary withdrawals from superannuation (retirement savings) plans direct financial support to businesses to “boost cash flow” temporary changes to bankruptcy laws to make it more difficult for creditors to demand payment increased financial incentives for new investment providing loan guarantees to small and medium-sized businesses temporarily easily regulatory standards (like capital ratios) for Australian banks, to free up more funds for lending The size of these combined measures is estimated to be 12.5% of GDP, according to calculations from the IMF (Chart 13). This puts Australia in the upper tier of G20 countries in terms of the size of the total government support measures, according to an analysis of fiscal policy responses to COVID-19 from our colleagues at BCA Research Global Investment Strategy.2 When looking at purely the fiscal policy response through tax changes and direct spending, and removing liquidity support and loan guarantees that may not be fully utilized, the Australian government’s stimulus response is 10.6% of GDP - the largest in the G20 (Chart 14). Chart 13Australian Policymakers Have Responded Aggressively To COVID-19 Chart 14Australia’s Planned Deficit Increase Is The Largest In The G20 Chart 15Australia Has The Fiscal Space To Be Aggressive The Australian government can deliver such a large response because it has the fiscal space to do it, with a debt/GDP ratio that was only 41.9% prior to the COVID-19 outbreak (Chart 15). This compares favorably to other countries that have delivered major stimulus packages but from a starting point of much higher levels of government debt. The Australian government can deliver such a large response because it has the fiscal space to do it. We do not see any downgrade risk for Australia’s sovereign AAA credit rating from the fiscal stimulus measures, despite the recent decision by S&P to put the nation on negative outlook. Australia will still have one of the lowest government debt/GDP ratios among the G20, even after adding in the expected increases in deficits for all the countries in 2020 (Chart 16). Chart 16Australia’s AAA Credit Rating Is Safe Net-net, the monetary and fiscal stimulus measures undertaken by Australian policymakers appear large enough to offset the immediate hit to the economy from the COVID-19 recession. This has important investment implications for Australian bond markets. The monetary and fiscal stimulus measures undertaken by Australian policymakers appear large enough to offset the immediate hit to the economy from the COVID-19 recession. Bottom Line: The RBA has taken extraordinary measures to cushion the blow from the lockdowns, like cutting policy rates to near-0% and capping shorter maturity bond yields through quantitative easing. The Australian government has also been aggressive in providing fiscal stimulus. These measures give the economy a better chance of seeing a “v”-shaped recovery as the lockdown restrictions are eased. Investment Conclusions We started this report by discussing the consistent outperformance of Australian government bonds versus other developed market debt over the past decade. After going through a careful analysis of the economy, inflation, monetary policy and fiscal policy, we now view the period of Australian bond outperformance as essentially complete. This leads us to make the following investment conclusions on a strategic (6-12 months) investment horizon. Duration: We recommend only a neutral duration stance for dedicated Australian fixed income portfolios; the RBA has little room to cut policy rates further; inflation expectations are too low; the nation is poised to rapidly emerge from COVID-19 lockdowns; and fiscal stimulus will be more than enough to offset the hit to domestic incomes from the recession. Country Allocation: Within global bond portfolios, we recommend downgrading Australia to neutral from overweight. The multi-year interest rate convergence story is largely complete, both in terms of central bank policy rates and longer-term bond yields. Our most reliable indicator for the future relative performance of Australian government bonds versus the global benchmark – the ratio of the OECD’s leading economic indicator for Australia to the overall OECD leading indicator – is increasing because of a greater decline in the non-Australian measure (Chart 17, second panel). This fits with the idea of the relative economic growth story turning into a headwind for Australian bonds after being a tailwind for the past few years. Within global bond portfolios, we recommend downgrading Australia to neutral from overweight.  Yield Curve: We recommend positioning for a steeper Australian government bond yield curve. The RBA is anchoring the short-end of the curve as part of its quantitative easing program, leaving the slope of the curve to be driven more by longer-term inflation expectations that are too depressed (third panel). Inflation-linked Bonds: We recommend overweighting Australian inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. As we discussed in a recent report, breakevens on Australian inflation-linked bonds are far too low on our fair value models, which include the sharp decline in global oil prices (fourth panel).3 Chart 17Move To Neutral Duration Exposure In Australia, While Favoring Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 18Australian Corporate Bonds Look More Attractive Now   Corporate Credit: We recommend going overweight Australian investment grade corporate debt versus government bonds. The recent spread widening has restored some value - especially when compared to the more modest increase seen in credit default spreads - while Australian equity market volatility, which correlates with spreads, has peaked (Chart 18). Also, the RBA has just announced that they will now accept investment grade corporates as collateral for its domestic repo market operations, which should increase the demand for corporates on the margin.4   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The full details of the Australian government economic response to COVID-19 can be found here: https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-03/Overview-Economic_Response_to_the_Coronavirus_2.pdf 2 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Global COVID-19 Fiscal Response: Is It Enough?”, dated April 30, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low", dated April 28, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4https://www.rba.gov.au/mkt-operations/announcements/broadening-eligibility-of-corporate-debt-securities.html Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The Fed’s unorthodox monetary policy is aimed at quashing volatility, lifting asset prices and debasing the currency, all of which are equity market bullish. Grim, but backward looking, macro data are already reflected in the significant restaurant relative share price correction. Upgrade to neutral. Book profits in the underweight S&P rails portfolio position and lift exposure to neutral on the back of: a.) already reflected grim ISM services data, b.) resilient industry pricing power, c.) firming railroad profit margin backdrop and d.) encouraging signs from our EPS growth model.   Recent Changes Augment the S&P restaurants index to neutral, today. Upgrade the S&P railroads index to a benchmark allocation, today. Table 1 Feature The SPX made a fresh run to recovery highs last week, cheering forward looking news of reopening of the economy and neglecting backward looking downbeat employment and PMI releases. Extremely easy fiscal and monetary policies remain the dominant macro themes, and underpin our sanguine equity market view for the coming 9-12 months. While Bill Martin’s infamous 1955 portrayal of the Fed as “the chaperone who ordered the punch bowl removed just when the party was really warming up”,1 the Jay Powell led Fed has done the opposite, and rightly so: it has ordered and delivered a bottomless punchbowl. The Fed’s unorthodox monetary policy is aimed at quashing volatility (Chart 1), lifting asset prices and debasing the currency, all of which are equity market bullish. According to Leo Krippner’s shadow short rates (SSR) estimate, the shadow fed funds rate is negative and should continue to support the SPX (SSR shown inverted, Chart 2). Chart 1Vol Will Melt Chart 2Crumbling Shadow Rates Underpin The SPX…   In fact, there are two distinct avenues that declining interest rates underpin equities: First, falling interest rates are a boon to equities via a rising price-to-earnings multiple (SSR shown inverted, Chart 3). While the 12-month forward multiple is above a 20 handle, the highest point since the dotcom bubble era, using second and third fiscal year sell-side profit estimates – which better resemble trend EPS – results in a more tame forward P/E multiple with more upside (Chart 4). Second, while the Fed would never admit to it, it is trying to devalue the US dollar and reflate the global economy, which will indirectly boost S&P 500 revenues. As a reminder, 40% of SPX sales are internationally sourced and thus a falling greenback is a boon to S&P 500 turnover (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 3…Via Higher Valuations Keep in mind that most of global trade is conducted in USD and when trade collapses it creates a US dollar shortage (i.e. fewer US dollars are circulating around) that lifts the value of the reserve currency and vice versa. Cognizant of that, the Fed is trying to provide ample US dollar liquidity and aid in pushing the greenback lower (top panel, Chart 5). Chart 4Peer Across The EPS Valley, And Valuations Have Room To Rise Chart 5Depreciating USD Is A Boon For SPX Sales Drilling beneath the SPX’s surface, early-cyclical consumer discretionary equities are the primary beneficiaries of negative SSR. The top panel of Chart 6 shows that over the past three decades relative share prices are the mirror image of interest rates. This cycle, household finances are in order and coupled with generationally low interest rates signal that consumer spending will recover smartly as the economy opens up in coming quarters. Thus, consumer discretionary stocks should sustain their outperformance (middle & bottom panels, Chart 6). A small digression with regard to the reopening of the economy is in order. Pundits have been discussing and showing the three distinct waves of the Spanish flu as the closest parallel with the current pandemic. Chart 7 shows these three waves using UK data, but the UK equity market (and the DOW for that matter) did not really budge back then. Keep in mind this was in the midst of a recession as the Great War was about to end on November 11, 1918 (Remembrance Day). Chart 6Stick With Consumer Discretionary Exposure Chart 7The 1918 UK Parallel, Including Equities   While no one really knows how in the long-term this pandemic will affect the economy, the stock market, society in general and consumer behavior in particular, our sense is that uncertainty will continue to recede in the coming months irrespective of the second and third likely waves. Why? Because not only do governments know more about this invisible enemy, but they (and hospitals) will also be more prepared to deal with any future outbreaks. Moreover, given that there is a race to get a novel coronavirus vaccine (and treatment) the world over, a breakthrough will soon materialize; MRNA’s recent FDA phase II clinical trial for their vaccine candidate is a case in point. Receding uncertainty is great news for stock investors. Meanwhile, in recent research we highlighted that early-cyclical interest rate-sensitive equities do in fact lead the GICS1 sector pack in recessionary recoveries based on empirical evidence.2 As a reminder, in mid-April we lifted the S&P consumer discretionary sector to overweight and this week we are updating our views on a hard hit subindex. We are also upgrading a deep cyclical services industry to neutral. Preparing To Dine Out It no longer pays to be underweight the S&P restaurants index; upgrade to neutral today. Not only the reopening of the economy will, at the margin, bring back diners (take out mostly) to restaurants, but the two heavyweights that comprise 80% of the market cap of the S&P restaurants group are anything but discretionary. In our view, MCD is defensive and SBUX has become a staple. Thus, as the economy slowly reopens and store traffic picks up, these bellwether stocks will lead this index higher. Relative share prices have corrected to the twenty-year uptrend line and hover near the previous two breakout points in 2011/12 and 2015/16 where they should find enough support (top panel, Chart 8). With regard to macro data, most of the restaurant-relevant releases are looking in the rear view mirror. In other words, the trouncing in restaurant retail sales and employment, food-away-from-home PCE and even the collapse in the Restaurant Performance Index were “known knowns” (Chart 8). Therefore, all of this grim news is already reflected in the 30% drubbing in relative performance from peak-to-trough. Chart 8Grim Data Priced In Chart 9Dollar The Reflator Domestic restaurant sales should stabilize in the coming months. If the Fed manages to devalue the US dollar (please see discussion above), then even international revenues in general and Chinese sourced sales in particular will rekindle overall industry turnover (Chart 9). Keep in mind that China’s economy reopening is leading the global economy by about six weeks. Importantly, construction spending on restaurants is falling like a stone and this decline in supply and industry capex will provide a much needed offset to free cash flow generation (middle panel, Chart 10). Nevertheless, three key concerns keep us at bay and prevent us from turning outright bullish. First, net debt-to-EBITDA has taken a steep turn for the worst of late, and while it is mostly driven by the shortfall in cash flow, it is still quite unnerving (bottom panel, Chart 11). Second, there is margin trouble that restauranteurs have yet to work out, and a rising wage bill will continue to weigh on profit growth (second panel, Chart 11). Finally, relative valuations are lofty for our liking. On a 12-month forward P/E basis the S&P restaurants index is trading at 53% premium to the SPX and 26% above the historical mean (third panel, Chart 11). Chart 10Supply Restraint Is Positive Chart 11Watch These Risks Netting it all out, grim but backward looking macro data are already reflected in the significant restaurant relative share price correction. Lift exposure to a benchmark allocation. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P restaurants index to neutral for a relative loss of 13.7% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5REST – MCD, SBUX, YUMB, CMG, DRI. Upgrade Rails To Neutral Over the past three years we have been mostly on the right side of rails both in bull and bear phases; today we recommend cementing relative gains of 6.4% since inception, and lifting exposure to neutral. Rails are the largest transports subgroup and this services industry is showcasing impressive resilience in times of adversity. True, the latest ISM non-manufacturing survey made for grim reading. Both the headline number and most of the key subcomponents of the survey were tough to digest: the overall survey fell near the GFC lows (bottom panel, Chart 12), the Business Activity Index collapsed to 26%, an all-time low. While this survey can fall anew next month, we deem that extreme pessimism reigns supreme, and as the US economy is slated to reopen some semblance of normality will return in coming months. Tack on the improving export data out of China, and we are cautiously optimistic that rail hauling services will soon stage a comeback (middle panel, Chart 12). Chart 12As Bad As It Gets Chart 13Green Shoots The defensive nature of rails is most evident in industry pricing power (third panel, Chart 13). Railroad selling prices are holding their own despite a sizable drop in volumes. Moreover, CEOs exercised caution and refrained from adding to headcount. Taken together, they are boosting our profit margin proxy, which can serve as a catalyst to lift relative share price momentum out of its recent funk (second panel, Chart 13). Similarly, our 3 factor S&P rail EPS growth model is heralding a pickup in profits in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 13). Despite all these tailwinds, there are some powerful offsets that tame our optimism on railroards. Intermodal rail shipments are a major freight category and thus a key determinant of rail profitability. As consumer confidence remains in freefall, downbeat retail sales will cast a dark shadow on this essential rail freight category (Chart 14). Finally, the industry’s rising debt profile is still a primary concern. Rail executives neglected capex in recent years and instead raised debt in order to retire equity and enhance shareholder value. We continue to view this “investment” backdrop with skepticism and prior to further augmenting exposure to an overweight stance we would want to see an easing on the debt uptake directed at these shareholder friendly activities (Chart 15). Chart 14The Consumer Is A Sore Spot Chart 15Debt Burden Flashing Red In sum, we are compelled to take profits in our underweight S&P rails portfolio position and lift exposure to neutral on the back of: a.) already reflected grim ISM services data, b.) resilient industry pricing power, c.) firming railroad profit margin backdrop and d.) encouraging signs from our EPS growth model. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P railroads index to a benchmark allocation today booking a profit of 6.4% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RAIL – UNP, NSC, CSX, KSU.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/statements-speeches-william-mcchesney-martin-jr-448/address-new-york-group-investment-bankers-association-america-7800 2     Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril” dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert)  January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth April 28, 2020  Stay neutral large over small caps  June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket  The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).