Disasters/Disease

Special Report

Highlights The potential range of book value outcomes for large banks is enormous, … : Total credit losses will be a function of the virus’ persistence, the intensity and duration of the social distancing actions taken to combat it, and the efficacy of monetary and fiscal policy measures meant to mitigate the economic pain. … making it almost impossible to assess their equity valuations: With the uncertainty around each of the three independent variables, estimating default rates and recovery rates is a guessing game. This is the most sudden recession on record, … : Nearly 10 million people have filed initial jobless claims in the last two weeks, more than the average over the first 26 weeks of the last seven recessions. … but the biggest banks have entered it on more stable footing than they typically would, and they have a few things going for them: The biggest banks are nowhere near as extended as they typically are after expansions, with unusually conservative asset portfolios and a large stockpile of equity capital. Feature “It depends” is always the answer to quite a few questions in economics, but right now, it’s the answer to just about all of them. Global economic activity is hostage to the COVID-19 outbreak, and the social distancing measures that have been implemented in an attempt to impede its progress. No one can say for sure how long those measures will have to remain in place, though their impact has been starkly apparent on the broad swath of businesses that they have rendered unviable. Non-essential retailers, pro sports leagues, movie theaters, concert venues, gyms, barbers, nail salons, bars and restaurants have had their revenue streams cut off entirely. Nearly all of them have some fixed costs: rent if they don’t own their space; maintenance, mortgage payments and property taxes if they do. Table 1A Half-Year Of Jobless Claims In Two Weeks Monthly rent and mortgage obligations pose a thorny issue for the banking system, because they could lead to a surge of defaults among retailers and their landlords. The unprecedentedly rapid rise in unemployment (Table 1) could trigger a tsunami of home mortgage, credit card and auto loan delinquencies. Congress, the Fed, and various executive-branch departments and agencies are doing their best to protect the individuals and businesses sucked into the vortex, but the ultimate success of their efforts is uncertain. That uncertainty makes it impossible to project the SIFI banks’ credit losses within a reasonably useful confidence interval. To take an extreme example, what if the collateral securing auto loans were reduced to its scrap value because consumers developed an aversion to previously-owned vehicles? Getting less far-fetched, what if all used cars had to be marked down by 20 or 30% to entice drivers to swallow their discomfort, and the value of soon-to-be-vacant homes and apartments faced similar haircuts? Neither is our base-case scenario, but the fact that the markdown scenario is at least plausible illustrates the difficulty of estimating credit losses, and the challenge of coming up with decent estimates of SIFI banks’ earnings and capital adequacy. For the time being, we cannot say if the SIFI banks are better bought or sold at their current prices because we don’t know how 1Q loan-loss provisions will affect their March 31st book value, or what June 30th book might be. Our thinking has evolved in the week since we published Part 1 of this Special Report on the biggest US banks’ vulnerability. Initially, 50 years of Wells Fargo’s financials led us to believe that the SIFI bank de-rating over the last month and a half was excessive, and we concluded that buying SIFI banks at or below their December 31st tangible book value provided investors with a significant margin of safety. The chance to buy at or below tangible book would be a gift even in a bad recession, but the current episode threatens to go well beyond bad. Though we still lean to buying the SIFIs rather than selling them, we now recommend that investors watch and wait before committing, as they should with risk assets more generally. We hold to that bias because our review of system-wide data revealed ample instances of how the largest banks have entered this recession in better shape than normal. We also take heart from the idea that the Fed and elected officials will vigorously pursue policies that directly and indirectly benefit the banks. The banking system is considerably more solid than it was ahead of the 2007-8 crisis. It’s not immune to the shocks that are roiling the economy, but it will not be a driver of them. A Lack Of Banking Excesses Back in 2007, the last time that a recession/financial crisis was taking aim at the US, a bank-examiner-turned-analyst told us that, “Banks create value on the liability side of the balance sheet [via deposits], and destroy it on the asset side.” At the time, the destruction was centered on subprime mortgages and the securities they spawned, but the story plays itself out in every cycle. Bad loans are made in good times, as bankers let their guard down after an extended period of low defaults and market share takes precedence over lending standards. Banks exercised more restraint over the last 10-plus years than they have in any prior postwar expansion. 11 years of zero- and negative-interest-rate policy have promoted plenty of credit excesses, as many investors have gone far afield in search of yield. Bond covenants have been shredded, and corporate leverage has duly risen. Yet banks have largely stayed out of the fray. Bank lending grew at a markedly slower rate between July 2009 and February 2020 than it has in any other postwar expansion1 (Chart 1, top panel). Chart 1An Especially Restrained Expansion Total loan growth slid all the way to 3.8% annualized versus 9.7% in prior postwar expansions. While real estate lending slowed the most, following the frenzy that precipitated the 2007-8 crisis (Chart 1, bottom panel), C&I (Chart 1, second panel) and consumer lending (Chart 1, third panel) also fell well short of their postwar expansion pace, and only consumer lending failed to set a new postwar expansion low (Table 2). From the examiner-analyst’s perspective, banks behaved less self-destructively in the last ten-plus years than they have in any other postwar expansion. Regulatory efforts to curb banking excesses really did get some traction. Table 2Core Bank Lending Growth During Expansions Setting An Uncharacteristically Good Example Historically, the largest banks are at the center of the excesses that make the banking system vulnerable and help set the stage for crises. It wasn’t a community banker, after all, who smugly declared that countries don’t go bust after having plunged headfirst into lending to shaky Latin American governments. It has been the biggest players who have hatched dubious financial innovations and scaled them to the extremes that trigger systemic rumbles. Since the 2007-8 crisis, however, the biggest banks have demonstrated uncommon restraint. As we noted in Part 1, loan-to-deposit ratios around 100% and above are a sign of instability because they have to be funded with capital flows that are here today but gone tomorrow. Lower loan-to-deposit ratios hold down profits, but they buffer banks’ exposure to the business cycle, provided that deposit funding isn’t diverted to uses that are riskier than straightforward loans. The FDIC and the Fed maintain data series that offer insight into different-sized banks’ use of their lending capacity. The FDIC’s Quarterly Banking Profile, published since the mid-‘90s, breaks out total system loan-to-deposit ratios into categories based on the size of individual banks’ assets. Using its data, we were able to compare the largest banks’ activity with all other FDIC-insured banks’ activity since 1997. The comparison showed that the largest banks performed an about-face after the subprime crisis, going from operating with uniformly higher loan-to-deposit ratios than all other banks to operating with uniformly – and significantly – lower loan-to-deposit ratios (Chart 2). Chart 2The Biggest Banks Are Using Less Of Their Lending Capacity ... The Fed’s commercial bank balance sheet data covering large and small banks extend back another decade. The data do not align perfectly with the FDIC’s, as the Fed’s large-bank subset (the top 25 banks by assets) has been broader than the FDIC’s since 2016 (top 9 or 10 banks) and was narrower in prior years (the FDIC’s top subset included 66 to 119 banks). The Fed’s data do not show large banks making fuller use of their deposit capacity in the ‘90s and most of last decade, but they echo the post-2007-8 drop-off in the FDIC data (Chart 3). The biggest banks have operated with less risk under the Basel 3/Dodd-Frank/Volcker Rule regime, allocating less of their capacity to loans, and considerably more to Treasuries, agencies and cash (Chart 4). Chart 3... No Matter How They're Defined ... Chart 4... And They're Directing It To Safer, More Liquid Assets Banks Are Better Capitalized Than They Used To Be The overall banking system is operating with considerably less leverage than it did in the ‘80s or ‘90s, as equity capital now accounts for 12% of total assets (Chart 5). Wells Fargo’s leverage history as shown in Part 1 suggests that banks were even more thinly capitalized in the ‘70s. An increased proportion of equity capital makes a bank more resilient to loan losses and other operational stumbles. Critically for the stability of the system, the SIFI banks are forced to maintain additional capital buffers. The combination of increased equity capital and increased holdings of liquid assets with little to no credit risk like Treasury and agency securities has made all of the largest banks safer. Chart 5Increased Equity Financing Has Made Banks More Resilient Some Fears Seem Overblown We reiterate from Part 1 that larger banks do not borrow short to lend long, and have not for a long time. According to the latest Quarterly Banking Profile, barely a sixth of the 4,400 banks with assets of less than $1 billion report having any derivatives exposure. A considerable majority of community banks must therefore take their asset and liability maturity profiles as given, leaving them exposed to the vagaries of shifts in the yield curve. No management team at a decently-sized publicly traded bank would dare to run anything more than a very narrow mismatch in asset and liability duration, however, as evidenced by the gargantuan interest-rate swaps market. Bank stocks may trade with 10-year Treasury yields, but the slope of the curve has very little bearing on bank earnings.2 During recessions, banks usually encounter more customers trying to park money than businesses trying to borrow it.  Unused loan commitments have provoked much agita among investors in recent weeks. A floundering company, desperately trying to stay afloat, may well draw down all of its available credit lines. Line drawdowns could force banks to make good on loan commitments made in better times that now have little prospect of repayment. While they do not appear to have been a significant issue in the ’90-’91 or 2001 recessions, lines were drawn down sharply in 2007-8 (Chart 6). Chart 6Much Ado About Nothing? The positive news for banks is that their exposure to untapped commitments is considerably smaller than it was heading into the last recession. They may also be less likely to be drawn, thanks to multiple Fed initiatives aimed at ensuring the availability of credit, like its ambitious plan to backstop investment-grade corporate borrowers, and the CARES Act’s expansion of Small Business Administration funding and provision of loans and loan guarantees for ailing companies in industries related to national security. There are going to be considerably more strapped borrowers, but they will have more non-bank avenues to obtain funding than they have had in prior recessions. Banks know that line demand may spike soon after the business cycle peaks; they reserve for unused commitments and will not be caught entirely unawares. Finally, not all of the unused commitments are to suffering C&I borrowers that investors most fear; Wells Fargo’s commitment history suggests that the largest share of the outstanding commitments are to individual credit card borrowers. Despite rising distress, lending has increased at a fairly modest rate during recessions, as households and businesses broadly shrink from risk, while deposits have grown at a faster rate, as the safety of FDIC-insured accounts gains appeal (Table 3). We do not expect that increased consumption of credit line capacity will materially alter the banking system’s credit exposures. Table 3Core Bank Lending And Deposit Growth During Recessions Investment Implications The banking system, anchored by the SIFI banks, is in considerably better shape now than it was in 2007, and does not pose an active threat to the financial system this time around. The banking system is not only better capitalized than it has been in the past, but large banks have invested far more conservatively. We cannot assess how expensive SIFI stocks are without having a better handle on potential loan losses, however, and we need to get a sense at how successful the Fed’s and Congress’ interventions to stem the building economic distress will be. We hope for the best, but the last-mile issues are complicated, and we expect that the mitigation efforts will have to work out some kinks before they begin to get traction. Don't worry about the banks, but give it some time before buying them. Congress and the Fed are trying to perform challenging new routines, and it's unlikely they'll stick the landing on their first try. Table 4Comfortably In The Money Our no-rush-to-buy take on the broad market applies to the SIFI banks, as well. We have high conviction that Congress and the administration will do whatever it takes to shore up the most vulnerable parts of the economy as they reveal themselves, and the Fed has already moved to a war footing. Stocks can go lower as they climb the learning curve, and may have to do so to signal the need for further intervention. We would not be concerned in the slightest if the SIFI banks were to cut or suspend their dividends. Husbanding cash is a good idea in times of uncertainty, and a couple of quarters without dividends is far preferable to shareholders than a dilutive secondary equity offering or rights issue. To the extent that it may leave elected officials more favorably disposed to the banking sector, it would be a plus. One may as well stay on the good side of legislators doling out goodies. Finally, our newly increased sense of caution does not extend to the put-writing idea we detailed two weeks ago. If implied volatility in the SIFI banks’ stocks returns to the triple-digit level, investors selling put options would be generously compensated for assuming the inherent risks. Even though the SIFIs have stumbled over the last six sessions, time decay and the steep decline in the VIX have the contracts we highlighted well in the money (Table 4).   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Until the NBER makes the official designation, our working assumption is that the recession began in March. 2 Please see the February 28, 2011 US Investment Strategy Special Report, "Banks And The Yield Curve," available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Global shortages of medical equipment – including medicines – are frontloaded until emergency production kicks in. As the crisis abates, political recriminations between the US and China will surge. The US will seek to minimize medical supply exposure to China going forward, a boon for India and Mexico. China has escaped the COVID-19 crisis with minimal impact on food supply. Pork prices are surging due to African Swine Flu, but meat is a luxury. Still, the “Misery Index” is spiking and this will increase social instability. Food insecurity, inflation, and large current account deficits suggest that emerging market currencies will remain under pressure. Turkey and South Africa stand to suffer while we remain overweight Malaysia. Feature Chart 1Collapse In Economic Activity With a third of the world population under some form of lockdown, general activity in the world’s manufacturing powerhouses has collapsed (Chart 1). The breakdown is a double whammy on market fundamentals. On the supply side, government-mandated containment efforts force workers in non-essential services to stay home while, on the demand side, households confined to their homes are unable to spend. Acute demand for medical supplies is causing shortages, while supply disruptions threaten states that lack food security. While global monetary and fiscal stimulus will soften the blow (Chart 2), the economic shock is estimated to be a 2% contraction in real GDP for every month of strict isolation. If measures are extended beyond April, markets will sell and new stimulus will be applied. Already the US Congress is negotiating the $1-$2 trillion infrastructure package that we discussed in our March 4 report, and cash handouts will be ongoing. When the dust settles the political fallout will be massive. Authoritarian states like China and especially Iran will face greater challenges maintaining domestic stability. Democracies like Italy and the US, which lead the COVID-19 case count, are the most likely to experience a change in leadership (Chart 3). Initially the ruling parties of the democracies are receiving a bump in opinion polling, but this will fade as households will be worse off and will likely vent their grievances at the ballot box. Until a vaccine or treatment is discovered, medical equipment and social distancing are the only weapons against the pandemic. National production is (rightly) being redirected from clothing and cars to masks and ventilators to meet the spike in demand. Will the supply shock cause shortages in food and medicine – essential goods for humankind? In this report we address the impact of COVID-19 on global supply security and assess the market implications. Medical Equipment Shortages Will Spur Protectionism Policymakers are fighting today’s crisis with the tools of the 2008 crisis, but a lasting rebound in financial markets will depend on surmounting the pandemic, which is prerequisite to economic recovery (Table 1). As the US faces the peak of its COVID-19 outbreak, public health officials and doctors are raising the alarm on the shortage of medical supplies. A recent US Conference of Mayors survey reveals that out of the 38% of mayors who say they have received supplies from their state, 84.6% say they are inadequate (Chart 4). Italy serves as a warning: A reported 8% of the COVID-19 cases there are doctors and health professionals, often treating patients without gloves or with compromised protective gear. These workers are irreplaceable and when they succumb the virus cannot be contained. In the US, doctors and nurses are re-using masks and sometimes treating patients behind a mere curtain, highlighting the supply shortage. While the shortages are mainly driven by a surge in demand from both medical institutions and households, they also come from the supply side, particularly China. Factory closures and transportation disruptions in China earlier this year, coupled with Beijing’s government-mandated export curbs, reduced Chinese exports, a major source of US and global supplies (Chart 5). Other countries have imposed restrictions on exports of products used in combating the spread of COVID-19. Following export restrictions by the French, German, and Czech governments in early March, the European Commission intervened on March 15 to ensure intra-EU trade. It also restricted exports of protective medical gear outside of the EU. At least 54 nations have imposed new export restrictions on medical supplies since the beginning of the year.1 Both European and Chinese measures will reduce supplies in the US, the top destination for most of these halted exports (Chart 6). Thus it is no wonder that the Trump administration has rushed to cut import duties and boost domestic production. The administration has released strategic stockpiles and cut tariffs on Chinese medical equipment used to treat COVID-19. With the whole nation mobilized, supply kinks should improve greatly in April. After a debacle in rolling out test kits (Chart 7), the US is rapidly increasing its testing capabilities to manage the crisis, with over a million tests completed as of the end of March (Chart 8). Meanwhile a coalition of companies is taking shape to make face masks. The president has invoked the defense production act to force companies to make ventilators. However, with the pandemic peaking in the US, the hardest-hit regions will continue experiencing shortages in the near term. Shortages are prompting public outcry against the US government for its failure to anticipate and redress supply chain vulnerabilities that were well known and warned against. A report in The New York Times tells how Mike Bowen, owner of Texas-based mask-maker Prestige Ameritech, has advised the past three presidents about the danger in the fact that the US imports 95% of its surgical masks. “Aside from sitting in front of the White House and lighting myself on fire, I feel like I’ve done everything I can,” he said. He is currently inundated with emergency orders from US hospitals. The same report tells of a company called Strong Manufacturers in North Carolina that had to cut production of masks because it depends on raw materials from Wuhan, China, where the virus originated.2 The Trump administration will suffer the initial public uproar, but the US government will also seek to reduce import dependency going forward, and it will likely deflect some of the blame by focusing on the supply risks posed by China. Beijing, for its part, is launching a propaganda campaign against the US to distract from its own failures at home (some officials have even blamed the US for the virus). Meanwhile it is cranking up production and shipping medical supplies to crisis hit areas like Italy to try to repair its global image after having given rise to the virus. In addition, the city of Shenzhen is sending 1.2 million N95 masks to the US on the New England Patriots’ team plane. Even Russia is sending small donations. But these moves work to propagandistic efforts in these countries and will ultimately shame the Americans into taking measures to improve self-sufficiency. Bottom Line: The most important supply shortage amid the global pandemic is that of medical equipment. While these shortages will abate sooner rather than later, the supply chain vulnerabilities they have exposed will trigger new policies of supply redundancy and import substitution. The US in particular will seek to reduce dependency on China. That COVID-19 is aggravating rather than reducing tensions between these states, despite China’s role as a key supplier in a time of need, highlights the secular nature of their rising tensions. The US-China Drug War Shortages of pharmaceuticals are also occurring, despite the fact that the primary pandemic response is necessarily “non-pharmaceutical” (e.g. social distancing). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the first COVID-19 related drug shortage in the US on February 27. While the specific drug was not disclosed, the announcement notes that “the shortage is due to an issue with manufacturing of an active pharmaceutical ingredient used in the drug.”3 The FDA is monitoring 20 other (non-critical) drugs potentially at risk of shortages because the sole source is China. The global spread of the pandemic will increase these shortages. On March 3 India announced export restrictions on 26 drugs, including paracetamol and several antibiotics, due to supply disruptions caused by the Chinese shutdown. While Chinese economic activity has since picked up, India is now among the string of countries under a nationwide lockdown. Similar measures enforced across Europe will also hamper the production and transportation of these goods. The implication is that even if Chinese drugs return to market, supplies further down the chain and from alternative suppliers will take a hit. The risk that this will evolve into a drug shortage depends on the intensity of the outbreak. Drug companies generally hold 3-6 months’ worth of inventories. Consequently, while inventories are likely to draw as supplies are disrupted, consumers may not experience an outright shortage immediately. In the US, as with equipment and protective gear, the government’s strategic stockpile will buffer against shortfalls in supplies of critical drugs. COVID-19 is aggravating rather than reducing US-China tensions. Nevertheless the supply chain is getting caught up in the larger US-China strategic conflict. Even before the pandemic, the US-China trade war brought attention to the US’s vulnerabilities to China’s drug exports. This dispute is not limited to illicit drugs, as with China’s production of the opioid fentanyl, but also extends to mainstream medicines, as highlighted in the selection of public statements shown in Table 2. How much does the US rely on China for medicine? According to FDA data, just over half of manufacturing facilities producing regulated drugs in finished dosage form for the US market are located abroad, with China’s share at 7% (Chart 9).4 The figures are higher for manufacturing facilities producing active pharmaceutical ingredients, though still not alarming – 72% of the facilities are located abroad, with 13% in China. Of course, high-level data understate China’s influence. The complex nature of global drug supply chains means that the source of finished dosage forms masks dependencies and dominance higher up the supply chain (Figure 1). For instance, active pharmaceutical ingredients produced in Chinese facilities are used as intermediate goods by finished dosage facilities in India as well as China. The FDA reports that Indian finished dosage facilities rely on China for three-quarters of the active ingredients in their generic drug formulations, which are then exported to the US and the rest of the world. Any supply disruption in China – or any other major drug producer – will lead to shortages further down the supply chain. Chinese influence becomes more apparent when the sample is restricted to generic prescription drugs. These are especially relevant because nearly 70% of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, of which more than 90% are dispensed in the generic form. In this case, 87% of ingredient manufacturers and 60% of finished dosage manufacturers are located outside the US, with 17% of ingredient facilities and 8% of dosage facilities in China (Chart 10). Of all the facilities that manufacture active ingredients that are listed on the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines List – a compilation of drugs that are considered critical to the health system – 71% are located aboard with 15% located in China (Chart 11). Moreover, manufacturers are relatively inflexible when adapting to market conditions and shortages. Drug manufacturing facilities generally operate at above 80% of their capacity and are thus left with little immediate capacity to ramp up production in reaction to shortages elsewhere. In addition, manufacturers face challenges in changing ingredient suppliers – there is no centralized source of information on them, and additional FDA approvals are required. The US will look to reduce its dependency on China for its drug supplies regardless of 2020 election outcome. China also has overwhelming dominance in specific categories. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that China makes up 97% of the US antibiotics market.5 Other common drugs that are highly dependent on China for supplies include ibuprofen, acetaminophen, hydrocortisone, penicillin, and heparin (Chart 12). Taking it all together, US vulnerability can be overstated. Consider the following: Of the 370 drugs on the Essential Medicines List that are marketed in the US, only three are produced solely in China. None of these three are used to treat top ten causes of death in the United States. Import substitution is uneconomical. Foreign companies, especially Chinese companies, are attractive due to their lower costs and lax regulations. While China’s influence extends higher up the supply chain, this is true for US markets as well as other consumer markets. While China can cut off the US from the finished dosages it supplies, it cannot do the same for the ingredients that are used by facilities in other countries and eventually make their way to the US in finished dosage form. Americans are demanding that drug prices be reduced and an obvious solution is looser controls on imports. The recent activation of the Defense Production Act shows that the US can take action to boost domestic production in emergencies. Nevertheless, China is growing conspicuous to the American public due to general trade tensions and COVID-19. As it moves up the value chain, it also threatens increasing competition for the US and its allies. Hence the US government will have a strategic reason to cap China’s influence that is also supported by corporate interests and popular opinion. This will lead to tense trade negotiations with China and meanwhile the US will seek alternative suppliers. China will not want to lose market share or leverage over the United States, so it may offer trade concessions at some point to keep the US engaged. Ultimately, however, strategic tensions will catalyze US policy moves to reduce the cost differential with China and promote its rivals. Pressure on China over its currency, regulatory standards, and scientific-technological acquisition will continue regardless of which party wins the White House in 2020. The Democrats would increase focus on China’s transparency and adherence to international standards, including labor and environmental standards. Both Republicans and Democrats will try to boost trade with allies. The key beneficiaries will be India, Southeast Asia, and the Americas. Taiwan’s importance will grow as a middle-man, but so will its vulnerability to strategic tensions. Bottom Line: The US and the rest of the world are suffering shortfalls of equipment necessary to combat COVID-19. There is also a risk of drug shortages stemming from supply disruptions and emergency protectionist policies. These shortages look to be manageable, but they have exposed national vulnerabilities that will be reduced in future via interventionist trade policies. While the US and Europe will ultimately manage the outbreak, the political fallout will be immense. The US will look to reduce its dependency on China. This will increase investment in non-China producers of active pharmaceutical ingredients, such as India and Mexico. The US tactics against China will vary according to the election result, but the strategic direction of diversifying away from China is clear and will have popular impetus in the wake of COVID-19. Food Security In addition to the challenges posed by COVID-19 on medical supplies, food – another essential good – also faces risk of shortages. China is a case in point. Food prices there were on the rise well before the COVID-19 outbreak, averaging 17.3% in the final quarter of 2019. However inflation was limited to pork and its substitutes – beef, lamb and poultry – and reflected a reduction in pork supplies on the back of the African Swine Flu outbreak. While year-on-year increases in the prices of pork and beef averaged 102.8% and 21.0%, respectively, grain, fresh vegetable, and fresh fruit prices averaged 0.6%, 1.5%, and -5.0% in Q42019 (Chart 13). Chart 13Chinese Inflation Has (Thus far) Been Contained To Pork Chart 14China's Misery Index Is Spiking - A Political Liability However China’s COVID-19 containment measures had a more broad-based impact on food supplies, threatening to push up China’s Misery Index (Chart 14). Travel restrictions, roadblocks, quarantined farm laborers, and risk-averse truck drivers introduced challenges not only in ensuring supplies were delivered to consumers, but also to daily farm activity and planting. The absence of farm inputs needed for planting such as seeds and fertilizer, and animal feed for livestock, was especially damaging in regions hardest hit by the pandemic. Livestock farmers already struggling with swine flu-related reductions in herd sizes were forced to prematurely cull starving animals, cutting the stock of chicken and hogs. Now as the country transitions out of its COVID-19 containment phase and moves toward normalizing activity (Chart 15), food security is top of the mind. Authorities are emphasizing the need to ensure sufficient food supplies and adopt policies to encourage production.6 This is especially important for crops due to be planted in the spring. Delayed or reduced plantings would weight on the quality and quantity of the crops, pushing prices up. With food estimated to account for 19.9% of China’s CPI basket – 12.8% of which goes towards pork (Chart 16) – a prolonged food shortage, or a full-blown food crisis, would be extremely damaging to Chinese families and their pocketbooks. However, apart from soybeans and to a lesser extent livestock, China’s inventories are well stocked (Chart 17) and are significantly higher than levels amid the 2006-2008 and 2010-2012 food crises. Inventories have been built up specifically to provide ammunition precisely in times of crisis. Corn and rice stocks are capable of covering consumption for nearly three quarters of a year, and wheat stocks exceeding a year’s worth of consumption. Thus, while not completely immune, China today is better able to weather a supply shock. Moreover, with the exception of soybeans, China is not overly dependent on imports for agricultural supplies (Chart 18).   As the COVID-19 epicenter shifts to the US and Europe, farmers there are beginning to face the same challenges. Reports of delays in the arrival of shipments of inputs such as fertilizer and seeds have prompted American farmers to prepare for the worst and order these goods ahead of time. While these proactive measures will help reduce risks to supply, farmers in Europe and parts of the US who typically rely on migrant laborers will need to search for alternative laborers as the planting season nears. Just last week France’s agriculture minister asked hairdressers, waiters, florists, and others that find themselves unemployed to take up work in farms to ensure food security. As countries become increasingly aware of the risks to food supplies, some have already introduced protectionist measures, especially in the former Soviet Union: The Russian agriculture ministry proposed setting up a quota for Russian grain exports and has already announced that it is suspending exports of processed grains from March 20 for 10 days. Kazakhstan suspended exports of several agricultural goods including wheat flour and sugar until at least April 15. On March 27, Ukraine’s economy ministry announced that it was monitoring wheat export and would take measures necessary to ensure domestic supplies are adequate. Vietnam temporarily suspended rice contracts until March 28 as it checked if it had sufficient domestic supplies. The challenge is that, unlike China, inventories in the rest of the world are not any higher than during the previous food crisis and do not provide much of a buffer against supply shortfalls (Chart 19). Higher food prices would be especially painful to lower income countries where food makes up a larger share of household spending (Chart 20). In addition to using their strategic food stockpiles, governments will attempt to mitigate the impact of higher food prices by implementing a slew of policies: Trade policies: Producing countries will want to protect domestic supplies by restricting exports – either through complete bans or export quotas. Importing countries will attempt to reduce the burden of higher prices on consumers by cutting tariffs on the affected goods. Consumer-oriented policies: Importing countries will provide direct support to consumers in the form of food subsidies, social safety nets, tax reductions, and price controls. Producer-oriented policies: Governments will provide support to farmers to encourage greater production using measures such as input subsidies, producer price support, or tax exemptions on goods used in production. While these policies will help alleviate the pressure on consumers, they also result in greater government expenditures and lower revenues. Thus, subsidizing the import bill of a food price shock can weigh on public finances, debt levels, and FX reserves. Currencies already facing pressure due to the recessionary environment, such as Turkey, South Africa and Chile will come under even greater downward pressure. Food inventories ex-China are insufficient to protect against supply shortages. Bottom Line: COVID-19’s logistical disruptions are challenging farm output. This is especially true when transporting goods and individuals across borders rather than within countries. This will be especially challenging for food importing countries, as some producers have already started erecting protectionist measures and this will result in an added burden on government budgets that are already extended in efforts to contain the economic repercussions of the pandemic. Investment Implications Chart 21Ag Prices Inversely Correlated With USD China will continue trying to maximize its market share and move up the value chain in drug production. At the same time, the US is likely to diversify away from China and try to cap China’s market share. This will result in tense trade negotiations regardless of the outcome of the US election. The COVID-19 experience with medical shortages and newfound public awareness of potential medical supply chain vulnerabilities means that another round of the trade war is likely. Stay long USD-CNY. Regarding agriculture, demand for agricultural commodities is relatively inelastic. This inelasticity should prevent a complete collapse in prices even amid a weak demand environment. Thus given the risk on supplies, prices face upward pressure. However, not all crops are facing these same market dynamics. While wheat and rice prices have started to move in line with the dynamics described above, soybeans and to a greater extent corn prices have not reacted as such (Chart 21). In the case of soybeans, we expect demand to be relatively muted. China accounts for a third of the world’s soybean consumption. 80% of Chinese soybeans are crushed to produce meal to feed China’s massive pork industry. However, the 21% y/y decline in pork output in 2019 on the back of the African Swine Flu outbreak will weigh on demand and mute upward pressures on supplies. Demand for corn will also likely come in weak. The COVID-19 containment measures and the resulting halt in economic activity reduce demand for gasoline and, as a consequence, reduce demand for corn-based ethanol, which is blended with gasoline. In addition to the above fundamentals, ag prices have been weighed down by a strong USD which makes ex-US exporters relatively better off, incentivizing them to raise exports and increase global supplies. A weaker USD – which we do not see in the near term – would help support ag prices. It is worth noting that if there is broad enforcement of protectionist measures, then producers will not be able to benefit from a stronger dollar. In that case we may witness a breakdown in the relationship between ag prices and the dollar. In light of these supply/demand dynamics, we expect rice and wheat prices to be well supported going forward and to outperform corn and soybeans.   Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 See "Tackling COVID-19 Together: The Trade Policy Dimension," Global Trade Alert, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, March 23, 2020. 2 See Rachel Abrams et al, "Governments and Companies Race to Make Masks Vital to Virus Fight," The New York Times, March 21, 2020. 3 The announcement also notes that there are other alternatives that can be used by patients. See "Coronavirus (COVID-19) Supply Chain Update," US FDA, February 27, 2020. 4 All regulated drugs include prescription (brand and generic), over the counter, and compounded drugs. 5 Please see Huang, Yanzhong, "The Coronavirus Outbreak Could Disrupt The US Drug Supply," Council on Foreign Relations, March 5, 2020. 6 The central government ordered local authorities to allow animal feed to pass through checkpoints amid the lockdowns. In addition, Beijing has relaxed import restrictions by lifting a ban on US poultry products and announcing that importers could apply for waivers on goods tariffed during the trade war such as pork and soybeans. The lifting of these restrictions also serves to help China meet its phase one trade deal commitments. Please see "Coronavirus hits China’s farms and food supply chain, with further spike in meat prices ahead," South China Morning Post, dated February 21, 2020.

Highlights The Federal Reserve’s temporary FIMA repo facility will go a long way in helping ease dollar-funding stress outside the US. However, with the duration of the lockdown highly uncertain, a liquidity crisis could rapidly evolve into a solvency one. If the containment measures prove successful by summer, then the global economy will be awash with much stimulus, which will be fertile ground for pro-cyclical currencies. However, in the event that we receive indications of a more malignant outcome, we could retest and break above the recent highs in the DXY. We assign a one-third probability to this outcome. For now, a barbell strategy is warranted. Hold a basket of the cheapest currencies, along with some safe-havens. Crude oil has approached capitulation lows, but conditions are not yet in place for a durable bottom. Stand aside on petrocurrencies for now. Feature Chart I-1The Fed's Liquidity Injections Are Working The DXY index has once again broken above the psychological 100 level. This has occurred alongside the backdrop of very generous swap lines offered by the Federal Reserve to foreign central banks, as well as a temporary repo facility for foreign and international monetary authorities (FIMA). In fact, the euro-dollar cross-currency basis swap is now in positive territory, suggesting that a key funnel for offshore dollar liquidity has now significantly widened (Chart I-1). Why then has the dollar continued to strengthen, despite a concerted effort by the Fed to flood the global system with dollars? We offer and explore three reasons: The Fed’s actions are still insufficient. The dollar crisis is evolving from a liquidity one to a solvency one. The liquidity-to-growth transmission mechanism needs time. The Fed’s Actions Are Still Insufficient The Fed’s actions so far to ease the offshore dollar funding stress have been to: Offer unlimited funding through swap lines to five major central banks at the overnight index swap + 25 basis points.1  This was effective the week of March 16. Extend the swap lines to nine more central banks, with a cap of US$60 billion and a maturity of 84 days.2 This was announced March 19. Allow FIMA account holders to temporarily exchange their Treasury securities held with the Fed for US dollars. This was announced on Tuesday. Have these actions been sufficient? For most developed market currencies, yes. Chart I-2 shows that the currencies that have been most hit in the first quarter were of the countries initially excluded from the swap agreement such as Australia, Norway and New Zealand. Since the March 19 agreement, these currencies have staged significant rallies. Chart I-2Very Few Winners In Q1 However, there are three reasons why the Fed’s actions are still insufficient. First, they are limited to only 14 central banks, and need to be expanded further. While currencies such as the Brazilian real and Mexican peso have stabilized, others like the Turkish lira or South African rand continue their freefall. In short, many emerging market central banks do not have swap agreements with the US. These are countries with huge dollar liabilities that could continue to see their currencies fall, pushing up the  aggregate dollar index. Developed market commodity currencies tend to be highly correlated to emerging market currencies (Chart I-3). There is a huge pool within the financial architecture unable to access funding through central bank swap lines.  The second reason is that the pool of Treasury securities available to swap for US dollars has shrunk significantly. This has been on the back of slowing global trade, which sapped the current account surpluses of many countries, dampening their foreign exchange reserves. Thus, while the Fed’s latest actions may prevent an international dumping of US Treasurys, it may be insufficient to completely assuage funding stresses (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Commodity Currencies Still At Risk Chart I-4A Smaller Pool Of Treasurys To Sell Finally, a recent report by the Bank of International Settlements3 showed that of the US$86 trillion in outstanding foreign exchange swaps/forwards, about 60% is among non-bank financial and other institutions. This suggests there is a huge pool within the financial architecture unable to access funding through central bank swap lines. Given that hedge funds are included in this group, this category entails a lot more credit risk than any central bank will be willing to bear (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Can The Fed Bail Out Non-Banks? Bottom Line: While the Fed’s injection of dollar liquidity has been massive and significant, access to these funds may be limited to entities that have significant credit risk. There is not much the Fed can do about this. But at the same time, it also suggests the Fed’s actions have been insufficient to quench the global thirst for dollar liquidity. From A Liquidity To A Solvency Crisis If the containment measures prove successful by summer, then the global economy will be awash with much stimulus, which will be fertile ground for pro-cyclical currencies. As a counter-cyclical currency, the dollar will buckle, lighting a fire under our favorites such as the Norwegian krone and the Swedish krona. The euro will be the most liquid beneficiary of this move. However, the DXY index has effortlessly broken above the psychological 100 level, suggesting we could catapult to new highs. When massive amounts of stimulus are injected into markets but prices keep falling (and the dollar keeps rallying), this portends a liquidity crisis morphing into a solvency one. What ensues is a liquidation phase where the only guiding signposts are technical indicators and valuation extremes. There are a few indications we could be stepping into this phase: During recessions, the dollar rally has tended to occur in two phases. The first phase prompts the US authorities to act, usually by dropping interest rates, which dampens the rally. The next phase epitomizes indiscriminate liquidation by financial markets (Chart I-6). Enter 2008. The US first introduced swap lines with a few central banks in December 2007. But from March to October 2008, the dollar soared by about 25%. This prompted the Fed to expand its swap lines to include even some emerging markets. Despite the knee-jerk fall in the dollar of 11%, we eventually made new highs by rallying 15%. While the Fed’s injection of dollar liquidity has been massive and significant, access to these funds may be limited. As the dollar rises, it takes time for economies to implode due to strong monetary and fiscal frameworks. The implosion of the euro area economy only surfaced well after the 2008 crisis. Specifically, there has been an epic rise in global nonfinancial corporate debt. As a result, credit default swaps across many countries are surging (Chart I-7). High-yield spreads are blowing out. Our bond strategists believe that even though there is value in investment-grade debt, high-yield paper remains at risk.4  Historically, whenever the default rate has breached 4% (as is the case now), a self-reinforcing feedback loop of higher refinancing rates and defaults ensues (Chart I-8). With a recovery rate that is going to be much lower than historical standards due to bloated balance sheets, this is worrisome. Chart I-6The Dollar Rally Occurs In Two Phases Chart I-7CDS Spreads Are Widening Significantly Chart I-8Large Defaults Are Ahead It is difficult to pinpoint where the epicenter of the potential default wave will be. The energy sector looks like a prime candidate, putting many commodity currencies at risk. Bottom Line: There is a non-negligible risk that the liquidity crisis evolves into a solvency one. Though this is not our base case, we assign a one-third probability to this outcome. Liquidity To Growth Transmission Channel Monetary stimulus only affects the economy with a lag, and fiscal stimulus is so far unlikely to completely plug the hole from economic disruption. This leaves currency technicals and valuation as among the only few guiding signposts towards a peak in the DXY. There is usually a significant lag between easing in offshore dollar funding costs and a respective bottom in the domestic currency (Chart I-1). The AUD/JPY cross has broken below the key support zone of 70-72. This defensive line held notably during the European debt crisis, China’s industrial recession and, more recently, the global trade war. This pins the next level of support in the 55-57 zone, on par with the recessions of 2001 and 2008. The USD/JPY is weakening again and will likely hit 100. A rising yen is usually accompanied by a dollar rally against other procyclical currencies. Outside of the Fukushima crisis, this has been a key indicator that the investment environment is becoming precarious (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Yen Could Touch 100 Some high-beta currencies such as the USD/TRY, USD/ZAR, and USD/IDR are still in freefall. These currencies are usually good at sniffing out a change in the investment landscape, specifically one becoming perilous for carry trades. Similarly, the USD/CNY has tested and has failed to break above 7.12. This will be a key level to watch since a break above will send Asian currencies into the abyss. “Doctor” copper has failed to stage a meaningful rebound. In fact, the copper-to-gold and oil-to-gold ratios continue to head lower from oversold levels.  Whenever cyclical sectors are underperforming defensives at the same time as non-US markets underperforming US ones, this has signaled that the marginal dollar is rotating towards the US. This is usually dollar bullish (Chart I-10A and Chart I-10B). “Doctor” copper has failed to stage a meaningful rebound. In fact, the copper-to-gold and oil-to-gold ratios continue to head lower from oversold levels. This signifies impairment in the liquidity-to-growth transmission mechanism (Chart I-11). Earnings revisions continue to head lower across all markets. Chart I-10ACyclical Markets Are Not Confirming A Dollar Top Chart I-10BCyclical Markets Are Not Confirming A Dollar Top   Chart I-11Dr Copper Is Sick Bottom Line: Historically, signs of capitulation can usually be observed by paying close attention to market internals and currency technicals. While we have had some marginal improvement, we are not out of the woods yet. Portfolio Strategy Chart I-12Go Short CAD/NOK We recommend maintaining a barbell strategy – a basket of the cheapest currencies, along with some safe-havens such as the yen and Swiss franc. Overall, investors should maintain a small upward bias in the dollar in the near term. Meanwhile, short USD/JPY positions make sense. Oil plays are becoming attractive, but conditions for a durable bottom are not yet in place. The strong rebound in the NOK/SEK cross is just an unwinding of the flash crash. If the dollar and oil have been at the epicenter of these moves, then the cross is still at risk of relapsing in the near term. We were stopped out of a long position in this cross, and will discuss oil and petrocurrencies next week. That said, a short CAD/NOK position is a much safer way to express a longer-term bearish view on the dollar (Chart I-12). We are going short this cross today with a stop-loss at 7.5. Finally, the pound remains extremely cheap versus the dollar, but the rally in recent days has eroded the potential for tactical upside. We will await better opportunities to own sterling.   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 These include the Bank Of Canada, Bank Of Japan, Bank Of England, European Central Bank, and the Swiss National Bank. 2 These include the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Banco Central do Brasil, the Danmarks Nationalbank (Denmark), the Bank of Korea, the Banco de Mexico, the Norges Bank, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, and the Sveriges Riksbank. 3  Stefan Avdjiev, Egemen Eren and Patrick McGuire, “Dollar Funding Costs during the Covid-19 Crisis through the Lens of the FX Swap Market,” BIS Bulletin, dated April 1, 2020. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy Joint Special Report, “Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis,” dated March 31, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been negative: The University of Michigan's consumer sentiment index plunged to 89.1 in March from 101 the previous month, the fourth largest monthly decline over the past half a century. ADP employment recorded a loss of 27K jobs in total nonfarm private sector, including a 90K decrease in small businesses payroll which was offset by the 48K increase in healthcare. Initial jobless claims surged to 6.6 million for the week ended March 27. The ISM manufacturing index came in at a relatively benign 49.1, but this was boosted by supplier deliveries. The DXY index appreciated by 1.1% this week amid growing concerns over COVID-19 and disappointing data releases. Shortly after the $2 trillion coronavirus rescue package last week, President Trump is now calling for another "very big and bold" $2 trillion "Phase 4" package on infrastructure spending. Report Links: The Dollar Funding Crisis - March 19, 2020 Are Competitive Devaluations Next? - March 6, 2020 The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been negative: The business climate indicator dropped to -0.28 from -0.06 in March, as the COVID-19 crisis deepens. The March consumer price inflation fell across the euro area: headline inflation fell from 1.2% to 0.7% year-on-year and core inflation decreased from 1.2% to 1%.  EUR/USD depreciated by 1.1% this week. Euro zone countries have until April 9 to design another stimulus package to support the economy which might consist of financial loans and a short-term work scheme. The biggest challenge being faced is that while some member countries (including France, Italy and Spain) are calling for joint debt issuance, others (including Germany and Austria) are fiercely against it. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been negative: The jobs-to-applicants ratio dropped from 1.49 to 1.45 in February. Industrial production contracted by 4.7% year-on-year in February, down from -2.3% the previous month. Housing starts fell by 12.3% year-on-year in February.  The Japanese yen appreciated by 1.6% against the US dollar this week, supported by growing concerns over COVID-19 and a global recession. The quarterly Tankan Survey shows that the sentiment index fell to a 7-year low of -8 in Q1 among large manufacturers, and dived to 8 from 20 among non-manufacturers. Besides, the survey points to a further deterioration of confidence over the next three months. Report Links: The Near-Term Bull Case For The Dollar - February 28, 2020 Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been negative, despite some positive releases for Q4: Consumer confidence dropped from -7 to -9 in March. Markit manufacturing PMI slipped from 48 to 47.8 in March. The current account deficit narrowed from £15.9 billion to £5.6 billion in Q4. Annualized GDP growth was unchanged at 1.1% year-on-year in Q4. The British pound soared by 2% against the US dollar this week. To preserve cash during the pandemic, the BoE's Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) suggested commercial banks to suspend dividends and buybacks until the end of this year in addition to cancelling outstanding 2019 dividends. Moreover, the PRA also expects banks not to pay any cash bonuses to senior staff. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mixed: Consumer confidence dropped from 72.2 to 65.3 in March. Manufacturing PMI slipped from 50.1 to 49.7 in March. New home sales increased by 6.2% month-on-month in February, up from 5.7% the previous month. Building permits grew by 20% month-on-month in February. However, we expect housing activities to slow down in March. The Australian dollar fell further by 0.4% against the US dollar this week. In the minutes released this Wednesday, the RBA warned that a "very material contraction" in economic activity was ahead. While the RBA said it was not possible to provide an update of the macro forecast given the "fluidity of the situation", it also expressed concerns that the contraction might linger beyond the June quarter. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been negative: Building permits grew by 4.7% month-on-month in February. However, business confidence plunged from -19.4 to -63.5 in March. The activity outlook index also dived from 12 to -26.7 in March. The New Zealand dollar fell by 0.8% against the US dollar this week. Similar to the BoE, the RBNZ is now restricting all locally-incorporated banks from paying dividends on ordinary shares until the economy has sufficiently recovered in order to preserve cash and support the stability of the financial system. The RBNZ is also taking measures to help support banks to lend to businesses. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been negative: Bloomberg Nanos confidence dropped from 51.3 to 46.9 for the week ended March 27. Markit manufacturing PMI fell below 50 for the first time since last September to 46.1 in March. The Canadian dollar fell by 1.2% against the US dollar this week, weighed down by the sharp decline in oil prices. The BoC lowered the overnight target rate by another 50 bps in an emergency meeting last Friday. It also joined the QE club by launching the Commercial Paper Purchase Program (CPPP) which aims to ease short-term funding stress. Report Links: The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been negative: KOF leading indicator dropped from 100.9 to 92.9 in March. Total sight deposits increased from CHF 609 billion to CHF 621 billion for the week ended March 27. The manufacturing PMI plunged from 49.5 to 43.7 in March. Headline consumer prices fell by 0.5% year-on-year in March, further down from the 0.1% decline in February. The Swiss franc fell by 1.5% against the US dollar this week. The SNB is not only battling a weaker economic backdrop, but also strong demand for safe-haven currencies. While the SNB has less room to further lower interest rates, it is taking part in easing funding stress from the pandemic. Report Links: On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Currency Market Signals From Gold, Equities And Flows - January 31, 2020 Portfolio Tweaks Before The Chinese New Year - January 24, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been negative: Retail sales increased by 2% month-on-month in February, up from 0.5% the previous month. Manufacturing PMI fell to 41.9 from 51.6 in March, the lowest since the Great Financial Crisis. The new orders, production and employment components all plunged below 40, while suppliers' delivery index soared to 74. The Norwegian krone rebounded by 2% against the US dollar this week, following the brutal selloff in recent weeks weighed by the sharp decline in oil prices. The Norges Bank is stepping up in currency intervention to reduce volatility including buying the krone in exchange for the US dollar. We believe there is now tremendous value in the krone once oil prices stabilize. Report Links: Building A Protector Currency Portfolio - February 7, 2020 On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been negative: Retail sales grew by 2.8% year-on-year in February. Manufacturing PMI crashed to 43.2 in March from 52.7. The Swedish krona fell by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. In the Swedish Economy Report released on Wednesday, the NIER (Swedish National Institute of Economic Research) estimates that Sweden's GDP will fall by just over 6% in the second quarter. While the NIER believes that the current central bank measures are appropriate in supporting the economy in a wave of bankruptcies and mass unemployment, Sweden has more room to act with relatively lower government debt to its advantage. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

Special Report

Making predictions about the economic and market outlook seems a futile exercise in the midst of such massive uncertainty. The deluge of articles about COVID-19 merely serves to highlight that nobody really knows how things will play out in the year ahead. Much depends on whether an effective vaccine or treatment becomes available within a reasonable timescale and that remains an open question. Social and economic disruption will continue to intensify until the spread of the virus starts to abate. One thing is certain. Economic activity around the world faces its biggest contraction in modern times. Declines in second quarter GDP will be mind-numbingly bad in a wide range of countries, especially those that have instituted lockdowns and the closure of non-essential businesses. According to the OECD, the median economy faces an initial output decline of around 25% as a result of shutdowns and restrictions.1 Chart 1A Meltdown In Economic Activity Estimates for the drop in US real GDP in the second quarter range as high as 50% at an annual rate. To put this into perspective, the peak-to-trough decline in US real GDP in the 2007-09 recession was a mere 4% over six quarters, and that felt catastrophic at the time. The New York Fed’s weekly economic index2 has already fallen to the lows of 2008 and worse is still to come (Chart 1). Could things be as bad as the 1930s Great Depression when US real GDP contracted by 25% over a three-year period? That would require an extreme apocalyptic view about the progression of the virus and does not bear thinking about. I am not that gloomy. Policymakers are acting aggressively to limit the economic damage. Central banks are flooding the system with liquidity and the cost of money is negligible. Meanwhile, fiscal caution has been thrown to the wind with massive government stimulus in many countries. While this will not prevent a deep recession, it will minimize the downside risks and support the eventual rebound. Markets are understandably in a deep funk because it is hard to price unknown risks. If this is no more than a two-quarter economic downturn followed by a sharp recovery, then a good buying opportunity in risk assets is in place given that monetary policy will stay hyper accommodative for a considerable time. If the downturn lingers much longer than that, then equities remain at risk. While loath to make a prediction, I am uncharacteristically tending to the more optimistic side. Let’s make the heroic assumption that we are not in an end of days scenario and that this crisis will pass at some point in the next year- hopefully sooner than later. What are some of the longer-run implications? A few come to mind. The backlash against globalization will gather impetus. Public sector debt will rise to unimaginable peacetime levels. Meanwhile, the crisis puts the final nail in the coffin of the private sector Debt Supercycle. Monetary policy will err on the side of ease for a very long time. The way that companies and other institutions have been forced to adapt to the crisis could trigger lasting changes in how they operate. Globalization In Full Retreat Chart 2A Retreat From Globalization The peak of globalization has been a central part of the BCA view for several years.3 Long before the current crisis, it was clear that anti-globalization forces were gathering strength, illustrated by increased trade barriers, a backlash against inward migration in many countries, and reduced flows of foreign direct investment (Chart 2). The Trump Administration’s imposition of tariffs and the Brexit vote were two of the more obvious examples of the change in attitudes. The supply-chain interruptions caused by factory shutdowns in China will reinforce the view that shifting production to cheaper-cost countries overseas went too far. At a minimum, it seems inevitable that many companies will seek to reduce their reliance on a single producer for critical components. On the medical front, one striking fact to emerge was that China supplies around 80% of US antibiotics. There will be massive pressure to develop greater homegrown supplies of medical supplies and other products deemed critical for economic and national security. The crisis also has led to a breakdown of the Schengen Area of open borders within the European Union (EU). Many member countries have reinstituted border controls and it is unclear when these might be removed. The free movement of people is a core principle of the EU. Meanwhile, the Maastricht Treaty rules on fiscal discipline, a key element of economic union, have been thrown out of the window. Even Germany has bowed to the pressure of relaxing fiscal constraints. Finally, a worsening situation for the already troubled Italian banking system will threaten EU financial stability. Overall, the crisis will leave a huge question mark over the long-term viability of the EU. Globalization was a major force behind disinflation as production shifted to low-cost producers. A reversal of this trend will thus be inflationary, at the margin. For many, this will be a price worth paying if it means increased job security and reduced vulnerability of supply chains. But the shift away from globalization will not be the only trend that threatens an eventual resurgence of inflation. The Explosion In Government Debt: Last Gasp Of  The Debt Supercycle BCA introduced the concept of the Debt Supercycle more than 40 years ago to describe the actions of policymakers to pump up demand rather than allow financial imbalances to be fully unwound during economic downturns. This inevitably meant that each new cycle began with a higher level of financial imbalances. As indebtedness rose, the economic costs of a financial cleansing increased, requiring ever-more desperate policy measures to shore things up. Unfortunately, such actions merely created the conditions for greater excesses and imbalances down the road. For example, the Federal Reserve’s aggressive response to the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000 helped set the scene for the even bigger housing bubble later in the decade. In that sense, the Debt Supercycle was a self-reinforcing trap that was bound to end badly, and that occurred in 2007. Chart 3The US Household Love Affair With Debt Died A Decade Ago Our discussion of the US Debt Supercycle was focused largely on the private sector because that is where rising imbalances posed the greatest threat to economic and financial stability. Rising public sector imbalances were less of a concern because governments do not finance themselves through the banking sector. Moreover, unlike the private sector, taxes can always be raised to boost revenues or, in extremis, the authorities can resort to the printing press. At the end of 2014, we wrote that the Debt Supercycle was dead. By that, we meant that easing policy would no longer be able to encourage a new cycle of leverage-financed private-sector spending. The downturn of 2007-09 was a turning point in attitudes toward debt, much in the way that those who lived through the Great Depression were financially conservative for the rest of their lives. Our view has been vindicated by the fact the ratio of household debt to income has decisively broken its pre-housing bubble uptrend and has failed to revive in the face of record-low interest rates (Chart 3). Corporate borrowing has been strong, but largely to finance stock buybacks and M&A activity. Capital spending has been disappointing this cycle, despite strong profits and margins. The current deep downturn will add a further nail in the coffin of the private sector Debt Supercycle. The shock of the recession and destruction of wealth will leave a legacy of increased financial caution with households wanting to build precautionary savings and companies striving to repair damaged balance sheets. It would not be a surprise to see the US personal saving rate head back to the double-digit levels of the early 1980s. While the private sector embraces greater financial conservatism, we are witnessing the start of an extraordinary surge in public sector deficits and debt from already high levels. Chart 4A Bad Starting Point For A Surge In The Federal Deficit Budget deficits automatically rise during recessions because tax receipts drop and spending on unemployment and welfare programs goes up (Chart 4). In the past, the starting point for deficits generally was low before a recession took hold. This time, the federal deficit has breached 5% of GDP when the economy was doing fine. With the current recession set to be deeper than in 2007-09 and fiscal stimulus likely to end up much more than the initial $2 trillion package, the deficit will far exceed the previous post-WWII peak of almost 10% of GDP, reached in fiscal 2009. The ratio of federal debt to GDP will soar past 100% within the next few years, exceeding the peak reached in WWII. A speedy decline in WWII debt burdens was helped by a sharp rebound in economic activity, supported by a powerful combination of demographics (the post-WWII baby boom) and pent-up demand. Real GDP grew at an average annualized pace of 4.3% in both the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, slower population growth means that growth in the next one and two decades will be less than half that pace. At the same time, the federal deficit will be under upward pressure because of the impact of an aging population on healthcare and social security. In other words, restoring order to fiscal finances through normal measures (growth and/or austerity) will be an impossible task. High levels of government debt are perfectly manageable when private sector savings are plentiful, interest rates are negligible, and investors seek the safety of low-risk bonds. Thus, $1 trillion US federal deficits have not prevented Treasury yields from falling to all-time lows. However, such conditions will not last indefinitely. The timing of when bloated budget deficits start to impact markets and thus the economy will partly depend on the actions of the Fed. Monetary Policy: Is There  A Limit To What It Can Do? Gone are the days when monetary policy was a rather technical exercise: tweaking the level of interest rates to ensure that money and credit trends delivered the economic growth consistent with low and stable inflation. In the past decade, the old rule book has been discarded with policymakers forced to take ever-more extreme measures to prevent total collapse of the economic and financial system. The 2007-9 downturn was easier to deal with than the current crisis. The primary problem a decade ago was a financial rather than economic seizure. While policymakers had to be creative, the main task was to shore up systemically important financial institutions and inject enough liquidity into the system to restore normal market functioning. And it worked. This time, the issue is an economic not financial seizure and associated liquidity strains are a symptom, not the primary problem. The immediate role of central banks is again to ensure that the financial system continues to function by injecting whatever amounts of liquidity are necessary. But monetary policy cannot directly bail out all the businesses that face bankruptcy or help those that have lost their jobs. That is the role of fiscal policy. What central banks can do is print money to finance the rise in budget deficits. During WWII, the Fed had an agreement with the Treasury Department to peg the level of long-term yields below 2.5% and this arrangement persisted until 1951, long after the war ended. This ensured that a post-war rebound in private credit demand would not cause a spike in interest rates that might short-circuit the recovery. We could well see a similar arrangement in the coming years, though it might be an informal rather than publicized agreement. The key point is that the Fed will be massively biased toward easy policy for many years. The current generation of central bankers have experienced periodic threats of deflation rather than inflation during the past 20 years and that will shape how they perceive the balance of risks going forward. After the Great Depression of the 1930s, fears of deflation lingered well into the 1950s and policymakers’ resulting complacency toward inflation led to the inflation spike of the 1970s. We are at a similar point again. The Fed will remain a massive buyer of Treasury bonds, even as the economy recovers because it will not want to risk higher yields undermining growth. Even if inflation starts to rise, the Fed will justify a continued easy stance on the grounds that inflation has fallen far short of its 2% target for many years. Given the combination of a global blowout in central bank balance sheets and the retreat from globalization, the scene will be set for inflation to surprise on the upside. But this may not occur for several years because the recession will create a lot of spare capacity and deflation is a greater near-term threat than inflation. We have long argued that a sustained upturn in inflation would be preceded by a final bout of deflation. The revival of inflation may be gradual but its insidious nature ultimately will make it more dangerous. It seems inevitable that there will have to be monetization of public sector debt, not only in the US but in other major economies. Once investor confidence returns, the demand for government bonds will recede and yields will be under upward pressure. Financial repression may help contain the rise, but that cannot be a long-term solution. In the end, central banks will be the bond buyers of last resort and ultimately it will have to be written off via making the debt effectively non-maturing. If the economic picture continues to deteriorate could central banks use quantitative easing to start buying assets such as equities and real estate? Current legislation prevents such purchases in the case of the Fed and European Central Bank. Of course, legislation can always be changed but the Fed would be reluctant for Congress to change the Federal Reserve Act. That could open a can of worms including amendments such as requiring regular audits of policy decisions and altering how regional presidents are chosen. But it will not be the Fed’s decision and if things get bad enough then nothing should be ruled out. An Accelerated Move To Virtual Activity? The restrictions on travel and public meetings and the closure of many businesses have forced companies to embrace online ways of conducting operations. And the same applies to schools and universities. In many cases, companies may find that virtual meetings between far-flung offices work rather well. This could cause a major rethink about future spending on business travel. Replacing travel with virtual meetings not only saves on airfares but also frees up employee time and reduces stress. And the improvements in communication technology make virtual meetings almost as good as the real thing. Of course, this is not a great story for airlines. The same arguments can be made for education but are slightly less compelling because of the social dimension. Mixing with friends and peers is one of the big attractions for students and most would be loath to give this up. And for working parents, it is not feasible to have children stuck at home. Nonetheless, at the post-secondary level, there could be a move to more online teaching. Another consequence of the current crisis has been a forced shift to more online shopping. This trend was already well established but is now likely to accelerate. Those retailers who fail to adapt will fall by the wayside. Market Implications As noted at the outset, it is hard to make predictions without knowing how the virus will progress. But we know a few things. First, there is not much scope for bond yields to fall from current levels. Second, equity valuations have improved as a result of the collapse in prices. Third, monetary policy will remain supportive of markets for a long time. On this basis, it is easy to conclude that stocks should beat bonds handsomely over the medium and long term. The short-term picture is cloudier. If the recession is short-lived and economic activity rebounds strongly, then we currently have a good buying opportunity for stocks. But there is no way to make a prediction about this with any conviction. The case for a strong recovery is that policy is massively stimulative and there will be a lot of pent-up demand. The case for a slow and drawn-out recovery is that consumers and businesses will be left with greatly weakened balance sheets and the loss of small businesses and associated jobs could be a lasting problem. A final issue is that fears of another virus wave could weigh on consumer and business confidence. Initially, there will be some extremely strong quarters of growth but beyond that, the odds favor a drawn-out recovery rather than a vigorous one. Faced with such uncertainty, one strategy is to rely on technical indicators rather than economic forecasts as a judge of whether it is safe to rebuild positions in risk assets. This gives some reason for encouragement as measures of sentiment are at depressed extremes, typically seen only at major bottoms. And this is supported by momentum indicators at oversold extremes. However, a word of caution: these indicators make the case for a near-term bounce but say nothing about the durability of any rally. For some time, non-US markets have looked more appealing than Wall Street from a valuation perspective. That remains the case, but there is an important caveat. Thus far, the virus has been more of a problem for the developed countries than emerging ones (China and Iran excepted). It remains to be seen whether Africa, and Latin America and other countries in Asia and the Middle East can avoid a catastrophic spread of the virus. It could potentially be disastrous given the poor infrastructure and lack of government resources in those regions. Moreover, a shift away from globalization is not bullish for the emerging world. Some positions in gold are a good hedge given current uncertainties and the fact that inflation fears will rise long before actual inflation picks up. In normal circumstances, the extraordinary rise in the US budget deficit would be bearish for the US dollar. But other countries are following the same path so in relative terms, the US is no worse off. And there is still no serious competition to the dollar as the global reserve currency. Thus, while the dollar might weaken somewhat, it should not be a major source of risk to US assets. In closing, it is impossible to provide the certainty and high-conviction predictions that investors crave. That makes it rash to make aggressive bets on how things will play out in the economy and markets. At BCA, we favor equities over bonds but advise continued near-term caution. The bottoming process in equities could be volatile and drawn-out. Building positions gradually seems the most sensible strategy.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Chief Economist mbarnes@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 For an estimate of the virus impact on a range of economies, please see the recent OECD report “Evaluating the initial impact of COVID-19 containment measures on economic activity”. Available at: www.oecd.org 2 The report and underlying data are available at www.newyorkfed.org. 3 For example, the retreat from globalization was discussed in our 2015 Outlook report published at the end of 2014.

Special Report

Dear Client, This week’s report is written by BCA’s chief economist, Martin Barnes. Martin explores the myriad ways the pandemic could influence long-term economic and financial trends. I trust you will find his report very insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Making predictions about the economic and market outlook seems a futile exercise in the midst of such massive uncertainty. The deluge of articles about COVID-19 merely serves to highlight that nobody really knows how things will play out in the year ahead. Much depends on whether an effective vaccine or treatment becomes available within a reasonable timescale and that remains an open question. Social and economic disruption will continue to intensify until the spread of the virus starts to abate. One thing is certain. Economic activity around the world faces its biggest contraction in modern times. Declines in second quarter GDP will be mind-numbingly bad in a wide range of countries, especially those that have instituted lockdowns and the closure of non-essential businesses. According to the OECD, the median economy faces an initial output decline of around 25% as a result of shutdowns and restrictions.1 Chart 1A Meltdown In Economic Activity Estimates for the drop in US real GDP in the second quarter range as high as 50% at an annual rate. To put this into perspective, the peak-to-trough decline in US real GDP in the 2007-09 recession was a mere 4% over six quarters, and that felt catastrophic at the time. The New York Fed’s weekly economic index2 has already fallen to the lows of 2008 and worse is still to come (Chart 1). Could things be as bad as the 1930s Great Depression when US real GDP contracted by 25% over a three-year period? That would require an extreme apocalyptic view about the progression of the virus and does not bear thinking about. I am not that gloomy. Policymakers are acting aggressively to limit the economic damage. Central banks are flooding the system with liquidity and the cost of money is negligible. Meanwhile, fiscal caution has been thrown to the wind with massive government stimulus in many countries. While this will not prevent a deep recession, it will minimize the downside risks and support the eventual rebound. Markets are understandably in a deep funk because it is hard to price unknown risks. If this is no more than a two-quarter economic downturn followed by a sharp recovery, then a good buying opportunity in risk assets is in place given that monetary policy will stay hyper accommodative for a considerable time. If the downturn lingers much longer than that, then equities remain at risk. While loath to make a prediction, I am uncharacteristically tending to the more optimistic side. Let’s make the heroic assumption that we are not in an end of days scenario and that this crisis will pass at some point in the next year- hopefully sooner than later. What are some of the longer-run implications? A few come to mind. The backlash against globalization will gather impetus. Public sector debt will rise to unimaginable peacetime levels. Meanwhile, the crisis puts the final nail in the coffin of the private sector Debt Supercycle. Monetary policy will err on the side of ease for a very long time. The way that companies and other institutions have been forced to adapt to the crisis could trigger lasting changes in how they operate. Globalization In Full Retreat Chart 2A Retreat From Globalization The peak of globalization has been a central part of the BCA view for several years.3 Long before the current crisis, it was clear that anti-globalization forces were gathering strength, illustrated by increased trade barriers, a backlash against inward migration in many countries, and reduced flows of foreign direct investment (Chart 2). The Trump Administration’s imposition of tariffs and the Brexit vote were two of the more obvious examples of the change in attitudes. The supply-chain interruptions caused by factory shutdowns in China will reinforce the view that shifting production to cheaper-cost countries overseas went too far. At a minimum, it seems inevitable that many companies will seek to reduce their reliance on a single producer for critical components. On the medical front, one striking fact to emerge was that China supplies around 80% of US antibiotics. There will be massive pressure to develop greater homegrown supplies of medical supplies and other products deemed critical for economic and national security. The crisis also has led to a breakdown of the Schengen Area of open borders within the European Union (EU). Many member countries have reinstituted border controls and it is unclear when these might be removed. The free movement of people is a core principle of the EU. Meanwhile, the Maastricht Treaty rules on fiscal discipline, a key element of economic union, have been thrown out of the window. Even Germany has bowed to the pressure of relaxing fiscal constraints. Finally, a worsening situation for the already troubled Italian banking system will threaten EU financial stability. Overall, the crisis will leave a huge question mark over the long-term viability of the EU. Globalization was a major force behind disinflation as production shifted to low-cost producers. A reversal of this trend will thus be inflationary, at the margin. For many, this will be a price worth paying if it means increased job security and reduced vulnerability of supply chains. But the shift away from globalization will not be the only trend that threatens an eventual resurgence of inflation. The Explosion In Government Debt: Last Gasp Of  The Debt Supercycle BCA introduced the concept of the Debt Supercycle more than 40 years ago to describe the actions of policymakers to pump up demand rather than allow financial imbalances to be fully unwound during economic downturns. This inevitably meant that each new cycle began with a higher level of financial imbalances. As indebtedness rose, the economic costs of a financial cleansing increased, requiring ever-more desperate policy measures to shore things up. Unfortunately, such actions merely created the conditions for greater excesses and imbalances down the road. For example, the Federal Reserve’s aggressive response to the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000 helped set the scene for the even bigger housing bubble later in the decade. In that sense, the Debt Supercycle was a self-reinforcing trap that was bound to end badly, and that occurred in 2007. Chart 3The US Household Love Affair With Debt Died A Decade Ago Our discussion of the US Debt Supercycle was focused largely on the private sector because that is where rising imbalances posed the greatest threat to economic and financial stability. Rising public sector imbalances were less of a concern because governments do not finance themselves through the banking sector. Moreover, unlike the private sector, taxes can always be raised to boost revenues or, in extremis, the authorities can resort to the printing press. At the end of 2014, we wrote that the Debt Supercycle was dead. By that, we meant that easing policy would no longer be able to encourage a new cycle of leverage-financed private-sector spending. The downturn of 2007-09 was a turning point in attitudes toward debt, much in the way that those who lived through the Great Depression were financially conservative for the rest of their lives. Our view has been vindicated by the fact the ratio of household debt to income has decisively broken its pre-housing bubble uptrend and has failed to revive in the face of record-low interest rates (Chart 3). Corporate borrowing has been strong, but largely to finance stock buybacks and M&A activity. Capital spending has been disappointing this cycle, despite strong profits and margins. The current deep downturn will add a further nail in the coffin of the private sector Debt Supercycle. The shock of the recession and destruction of wealth will leave a legacy of increased financial caution with households wanting to build precautionary savings and companies striving to repair damaged balance sheets. It would not be a surprise to see the US personal saving rate head back to the double-digit levels of the early 1980s. While the private sector embraces greater financial conservatism, we are witnessing the start of an extraordinary surge in public sector deficits and debt from already high levels. Chart 4A Bad Starting Point For A Surge In The Federal Deficit Budget deficits automatically rise during recessions because tax receipts drop and spending on unemployment and welfare programs goes up (Chart 4). In the past, the starting point for deficits generally was low before a recession took hold. This time, the federal deficit has breached 5% of GDP when the economy was doing fine. With the current recession set to be deeper than in 2007-09 and fiscal stimulus likely to end up much more than the initial $2 trillion package, the deficit will far exceed the previous post-WWII peak of almost 10% of GDP, reached in fiscal 2009. The ratio of federal debt to GDP will soar past 100% within the next few years, exceeding the peak reached in WWII. A speedy decline in WWII debt burdens was helped by a sharp rebound in economic activity, supported by a powerful combination of demographics (the post-WWII baby boom) and pent-up demand. Real GDP grew at an average annualized pace of 4.3% in both the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, slower population growth means that growth in the next one and two decades will be less than half that pace. At the same time, the federal deficit will be under upward pressure because of the impact of an aging population on healthcare and social security. In other words, restoring order to fiscal finances through normal measures (growth and/or austerity) will be an impossible task. High levels of government debt are perfectly manageable when private sector savings are plentiful, interest rates are negligible, and investors seek the safety of low-risk bonds. Thus, $1 trillion US federal deficits have not prevented Treasury yields from falling to all-time lows. However, such conditions will not last indefinitely. The timing of when bloated budget deficits start to impact markets and thus the economy will partly depend on the actions of the Fed. Monetary Policy: Is There  A Limit To What It Can Do? Gone are the days when monetary policy was a rather technical exercise: tweaking the level of interest rates to ensure that money and credit trends delivered the economic growth consistent with low and stable inflation. In the past decade, the old rule book has been discarded with policymakers forced to take ever-more extreme measures to prevent total collapse of the economic and financial system. The 2007-9 downturn was easier to deal with than the current crisis. The primary problem a decade ago was a financial rather than economic seizure. While policymakers had to be creative, the main task was to shore up systemically important financial institutions and inject enough liquidity into the system to restore normal market functioning. And it worked. This time, the issue is an economic not financial seizure and associated liquidity strains are a symptom, not the primary problem. The immediate role of central banks is again to ensure that the financial system continues to function by injecting whatever amounts of liquidity are necessary. But monetary policy cannot directly bail out all the businesses that face bankruptcy or help those that have lost their jobs. That is the role of fiscal policy. What central banks can do is print money to finance the rise in budget deficits. During WWII, the Fed had an agreement with the Treasury Department to peg the level of long-term yields below 2.5% and this arrangement persisted until 1951, long after the war ended. This ensured that a post-war rebound in private credit demand would not cause a spike in interest rates that might short-circuit the recovery. We could well see a similar arrangement in the coming years, though it might be an informal rather than publicized agreement. The key point is that the Fed will be massively biased toward easy policy for many years. The current generation of central bankers have experienced periodic threats of deflation rather than inflation during the past 20 years and that will shape how they perceive the balance of risks going forward. After the Great Depression of the 1930s, fears of deflation lingered well into the 1950s and policymakers’ resulting complacency toward inflation led to the inflation spike of the 1970s. We are at a similar point again. The Fed will remain a massive buyer of Treasury bonds, even as the economy recovers because it will not want to risk higher yields undermining growth. Even if inflation starts to rise, the Fed will justify a continued easy stance on the grounds that inflation has fallen far short of its 2% target for many years. Given the combination of a global blowout in central bank balance sheets and the retreat from globalization, the scene will be set for inflation to surprise on the upside. But this may not occur for several years because the recession will create a lot of spare capacity and deflation is a greater near-term threat than inflation. We have long argued that a sustained upturn in inflation would be preceded by a final bout of deflation. The revival of inflation may be gradual but its insidious nature ultimately will make it more dangerous. It seems inevitable that there will have to be monetization of public sector debt, not only in the US but in other major economies. Once investor confidence returns, the demand for government bonds will recede and yields will be under upward pressure. Financial repression may help contain the rise, but that cannot be a long-term solution. In the end, central banks will be the bond buyers of last resort and ultimately it will have to be written off via making the debt effectively non-maturing. If the economic picture continues to deteriorate could central banks use quantitative easing to start buying assets such as equities and real estate? Current legislation prevents such purchases in the case of the Fed and European Central Bank. Of course, legislation can always be changed but the Fed would be reluctant for Congress to change the Federal Reserve Act. That could open a can of worms including amendments such as requiring regular audits of policy decisions and altering how regional presidents are chosen. But it will not be the Fed’s decision and if things get bad enough then nothing should be ruled out. An Accelerated Move To Virtual Activity? The restrictions on travel and public meetings and the closure of many businesses have forced companies to embrace online ways of conducting operations. And the same applies to schools and universities. In many cases, companies may find that virtual meetings between far-flung offices work rather well. This could cause a major rethink about future spending on business travel. Replacing travel with virtual meetings not only saves on airfares but also frees up employee time and reduces stress. And the improvements in communication technology make virtual meetings almost as good as the real thing. Of course, this is not a great story for airlines. The same arguments can be made for education but are slightly less compelling because of the social dimension. Mixing with friends and peers is one of the big attractions for students and most would be loath to give this up. And for working parents, it is not feasible to have children stuck at home. Nonetheless, at the post-secondary level, there could be a move to more online teaching. Another consequence of the current crisis has been a forced shift to more online shopping. This trend was already well established but is now likely to accelerate. Those retailers who fail to adapt will fall by the wayside. Market Implications As noted at the outset, it is hard to make predictions without knowing how the virus will progress. But we know a few things. First, there is not much scope for bond yields to fall from current levels. Second, equity valuations have improved as a result of the collapse in prices. Third, monetary policy will remain supportive of markets for a long time. On this basis, it is easy to conclude that stocks should beat bonds handsomely over the medium and long term. The short-term picture is cloudier. If the recession is short-lived and economic activity rebounds strongly, then we currently have a good buying opportunity for stocks. But there is no way to make a prediction about this with any conviction. The case for a strong recovery is that policy is massively stimulative and there will be a lot of pent-up demand. The case for a slow and drawn-out recovery is that consumers and businesses will be left with greatly weakened balance sheets and the loss of small businesses and associated jobs could be a lasting problem. A final issue is that fears of another virus wave could weigh on consumer and business confidence. Initially, there will be some extremely strong quarters of growth but beyond that, the odds favor a drawn-out recovery rather than a vigorous one. Faced with such uncertainty, one strategy is to rely on technical indicators rather than economic forecasts as a judge of whether it is safe to rebuild positions in risk assets. This gives some reason for encouragement as measures of sentiment are at depressed extremes, typically seen only at major bottoms. And this is supported by momentum indicators at oversold extremes. However, a word of caution: these indicators make the case for a near-term bounce but say nothing about the durability of any rally. For some time, non-US markets have looked more appealing than Wall Street from a valuation perspective. That remains the case, but there is an important caveat. Thus far, the virus has been more of a problem for the developed countries than emerging ones (China and Iran excepted). It remains to be seen whether Africa, and Latin America and other countries in Asia and the Middle East can avoid a catastrophic spread of the virus. It could potentially be disastrous given the poor infrastructure and lack of government resources in those regions. Moreover, a shift away from globalization is not bullish for the emerging world. Some positions in gold are a good hedge given current uncertainties and the fact that inflation fears will rise long before actual inflation picks up. In normal circumstances, the extraordinary rise in the US budget deficit would be bearish for the US dollar. But other countries are following the same path so in relative terms, the US is no worse off. And there is still no serious competition to the dollar as the global reserve currency. Thus, while the dollar might weaken somewhat, it should not be a major source of risk to US assets. In closing, it is impossible to provide the certainty and high-conviction predictions that investors crave. That makes it rash to make aggressive bets on how things will play out in the economy and markets. At BCA, we favor equities over bonds but advise continued near-term caution. The bottoming process in equities could be volatile and drawn-out. Building positions gradually seems the most sensible strategy.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Chief Economist mbarnes@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    For an estimate of the virus impact on a range of economies, please see the recent OECD report “Evaluating the initial impact of COVID-19 containment measures on economic activity”. Available at: www.oecd.org 2   The report and underlying data are available at www.newyorkfed.org. 3   For example, the retreat from globalization was discussed in our 2015 Outlook report published at the end of 2014.

Highlights Please note that we published a Special Report early this week titled Brazilian Banks: Falling Angels, and an analysis on India. Please also note that we are publishing an analysis on Indonesia below. Given uncertainty over the depth and duration of the unfolding global recession, a sustainable equity bull run is now unlikely. It is still early to lift EM equity and EM credit allocations from underweight to overweight within global equity and global credit portfolios, respectively. EM currencies and EM fixed-income markets will remain under selling pressure. Feature The question investors now face is whether the recent rebound will endure for a few months or it will just be a bear market rebound that is already fading. BCA’s Emerging Market Strategy service believes it is the latter. EM and DM share prices will likely make new lows.  A Tale Of Two Charts Chart I-1and I-2 overlay the current S&P 500 selloff with the market crashes of 1987 and 1929, respectively. The speed and ferocity of the current selloff is on a par with both. In 1987, following the 33% crash, share prices rebounded 14% but then relapsed without breaking below previous lows (Chart I-1). That was a hint that US share prices were entering a major bull market that indeed ensued. We do not know if the S&P 500 will make a lower low, but a retest of the recent lows is very likely. In 1929, US share prices collapsed by 36% over several weeks. Then, the overall index staged an 18% rebound within a couple of weeks, rolled over and plunged to new lows. The magnitude of the second downleg was 27% (Chart I-2). Chart I-1S&P 500: Now Versus 1987 Chart I-2S&P 500: Now Versus 1929   Fast forward to today, the S&P 500 plummeted 34% in a matter of only four weeks and then staged a 17.5% rebound in only a few days. We do not know if the S&P 500 will make a lower low, but a retest of the recent lows is very likely. In fact, we are assigning a higher probability to share prices in EM and DM breaking down to new lows than for the recent lows to hold. Chart I-3S&P 500: Now Versus 1929-32 Readers may question why we are comparing the current episode with the 1929 bear market. The argument against this comparison stresses that policymakers made numerous mistakes between 1929 and 1932, refusing to ease policy even after the crisis commenced. That led to debt deflation and a banking crisis, which in turn produced a vicious equity bear market of 85% lasting 3 years. At present, authorities around the world have reacted swiftly, providing enormous fiscal and monetary stimulus. We agree with this reasoning, but our point is as follows: Due to the US’s ongoing aggressive and timely policy response, stocks will avoid the protracted second phase of the 1930-‘32 bear market when share prices plummeted by another 80% (Chart I-3). Nonetheless, the US equity market could still repeat what occurred in the initial part of the 1929 bear market, as illustrated in Chart I-2 and Chart I-3. The Fundamentals The basis for our expectations of continued weakness in share prices is as follows: The selloff in the S&P 500 began from overbought and expensive levels (Chart I-4). The duration of the selloff so far has been only four weeks. We doubt that such a short, albeit vicious, selloff was enough to clear out valuation and positioning excesses. For example, even though by March 24 net long positions in US equity futures had dropped significantly, they were still above their 2011 and 2015/16 lows (Chart I-5). Chart I-4S&P 500: Correcting From Expensive Levels Chart I-5Net Long Positions In US Equity Indexes Futures   Besides, US equity valuations are still elevated. The cyclically adjusted P/E ratio for the S&P 500 – based on operating profits – is 25 compared with its historical mean of 16.5, as demonstrated in the top panel of Chart I-4. While this valuation model does not take into account interest rates, our hunch is as follows: facing such high uncertainty over the profit outlook, investors will require higher than usual risk premiums to invest in equities. In short, the ongoing profit collapse and the extreme uncertainty over the cyclical outlook heralds a higher risk premium. The discount rate – which is the sum of the risk-free rate and risk premium – presently should not be lower than its average over the past 20 years. We are experiencing a sort of natural disaster, and there is little policymakers can do amid lockdowns. Natural disasters require time to play out, and financial markets are attempting to price in this downturn.  Most stimulus measures taken worldwide to boost demand will only gain traction after the lockdowns are over. At the moment, global output and demand remain in freefall. The recovery will be hesitant and is unlikely to be V-shaped for two reasons: (1) social distancing measures will be eased only gradually; and (2) the lost household income and corporate profits from weeks and months of shutdowns will continue to weigh on consumer and business sentiment and their spending patterns for several months. China’s economy is a case in point. Both manufacturing and services PMIs for March posted readings in the 50-52 range. These are rather underwhelming numbers. Following stringent lockdowns in February when the level of economic output literally collapsed, only 52% of companies surveyed reported an improvement in their business activity/new orders in March relative to February. Chart I-6Our Reflation Confirming Indicator Is Downbeat If true, these PMI readings imply a level of output and demand in China that is still well below March 2019 levels. It seems China has not been able to engineer a V-shaped recovery in demand and output. Therefore, the odds are that, outside China, economic activity will come back only slowly. This entails that some businesses will not reach their breakeven points anytime soon, and that their profits will be contracting for some time to come. We do not think this is reflected in today’s asset prices.       Finally, our Reflation Confirming Indicator – which is composed of equally-weighted prices of industrial metals, platinum and US lumber – is pointing down (Chart I-6). Bottom Line: This bear market has been ferocious, but too short in duration. It is unlikely that share prices have already bottomed, given uncertainty over the depth and duration of the unfolding global recession. EM Versus DM: Stay Underweight Chart I-7EM Versus DM: Relative Equity Prices EM stocks have failed to outperform DM equities in the recent rebound. As a result, EM versus DM relative share prices are testing new lows (Chart I-7). Odds are that EM will underperform DM in the coming weeks or months. Outside North Asian economies (China, Korea and Taiwan), EM countries have less capacity to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic than advanced countries. First, health care systems in developing countries are far less equipped to deal with the pandemic than DM ones. Chart I-8 shows the number of hospital beds per 1,000 people in India, Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico are significantly lower than in Europe and the US. Chart I-8Many EMs Have Poor Health Infrastructure Second, EM ex-North Asian economies lack both the social safety net of Europe and the US’s capacity to inject large amounts of fiscal and monetary stimulus into the system. With the US dollar being the world reserve currency, the US has no problem monetizing its public debt and fiscal deficits. The same is true for the European Central Bank (ECB). If current account-deficit EM countries following in the footsteps of the US and monetize fiscal deficits/public debt, their currencies will likely depreciate. Last week, the South African central bank announced that it will buy local currency government bonds to cap their yields and inject liquidity into the system. This is of little help to foreign investors in domestic bonds because the rand has continued to sell off, eroding the US dollar value of their government bond holdings. Hence, the foreign investor exodus from the local currency bond market will likely continue. The same would be true for many other EM countries if they contemplate QE-type policies. Most stimulus measures taken worldwide to boost demand will only gain traction after the lockdowns are over. Third, unlike the Fed and the ECB, EM ex-North Asia central banks have limited capacity to alleviate funding stress for their companies. The Fed is also purchasing investment-grade corporate bonds and is setting up structures to channel credit to companies. All of this will marginally help ease financial and credit stress in the US. In contrast, central banks in EM ex-North Asia are unlikely to adopt similar policies on a comparable scale as the US. While DM countries do not mind seeing their currencies depreciate, authorities in many developing countries are fearful of further depreciation. The latter will inflict more stress on EM companies and banks that have large foreign currency debt. We will publish a report on EM foreign currency debt next week. Further, corporate bonds in DM are issued in local currency, allowing their central banks to purchase corporate bonds in unlimited quantities by creating money “out of thin air.” Chart I-9EM Performance Correlates With Commodities In contrast, outside of China and Korea, the majority of EM corporate bonds are issued in US dollars. This means that to bring down their corporate US borrowing costs, central banks in developing countries need to spend their finite US dollar reserves. Finally, commodities prices are critical to EM financial markets’ absolute and relative performance (Chart I-9). The outlook for commodities prices remains dismal. As the global economy has experienced a sudden stop, demand for raw materials and energy has literally evaporated. Liquidity provisions by the Fed and other key central banks may at a certain point help financial assets but will not help commodities. The basis is that demand for equities and bonds is entirely driven by investors, but in the case of commodities a large share of demand comes from the real economy. In bad times like these, central banks’ liquidity provisions can at a certain point persuade investors to look through the recession and begin buying financial assets before the real economy bottoms. In the case of commodities, when real demand is collapsing, financial demand will not be able to revive commodities prices. Bottom Line: It is still early to lift EM equity and EM credit allocations from underweight to overweight within global equity and global credit portfolios, respectively. Technicals: Old Support = New Resistance? Calling tops and bottoms in financial markets is never easy. When formulating investment strategy it is helpful to examine both market price actions and other subtle clues that financial markets often provide. The global equity index and global industrial stocks have rebounded to levels that acted as supports during previous selloffs. We have detected the following patterns that suggest the recent rebound is facing major resistance, and new lower lows are likely: The global equity index and global industrial stocks have rebounded to levels that acted as supports during previous selloffs (Chart I-10). Unless these equity indexes decisively break above these lines, the odds favor retesting their recent lows or even falling to new lows. Many other equity indexes and individual stocks are also displaying similar technical patterns. The Korean won versus the US dollar as well as silver prices exhibit a similar technical profile (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Ominous Technical Signals Chart I-11New Lows Ahead   Global materials have decisively broken below their long-term moving average that served as a major support in 2002, 2008 and 2015 (Chart I-12). The same multi-year moving average is now likely to act as a resistance. Hence, any rebound in global materials stocks – that extremely closely correlate with EM share prices – is very unlikely to prove durable until this support-turned-resistance level is decisively breached. US FAANGM (FB, AMZN, APPL, NFLX, GOOG, MSFT) equally-weighted stock prices have dropped below their 200-day moving average that served as a major support in recent years (Chart I-13). They did rebound but have not yet broken above the same line. Odds are that this line will become a resistance. If true, this will entail new lows in FAANGM stocks. Chart I-12Global Materials Broke Below Their Long-Term Defense Line Chart I-13FAANGM: Previous Support Has Become New Resistance   Bottom Line: Various financial markets are exhibiting technical patterns consistent with retesting recent lows or making lower lows. Stay put. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Indonesia: A Fallen Angel Chart II-1Indonesian Equities Are In Freefall In Absolute & Relative Terms Indonesian stock prices are in freefall - both in absolute terms and relative to EM - with no visible support (Chart II-1). We recommend that investors maintain an underweight position in both Indonesian equities and fixed-income and continue to short the rupiah versus the US dollar. We explain the reasoning behind this recommendation below. First, the key vulnerability of Indonesian financial markets is that they had been supported by massive foreign inflows stirred by falling US interest rates, despite deteriorating domestic fundamentals and falling commodities prices. We discussed this at length in our previous reports. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought these weak fundamentals to light. The latter have overshadowed falling US interest rates (Chart II-2) triggering an exodus of foreign portfolio capital and a plunge in the exchange rate. Currency depreciation has in turn mounted foreign investors losses resulting in a vicious feedback loop. As of the end of February, foreigners held about 37% of local currency bonds. Meanwhile, they held 56% of equities as of last week. Ongoing currency weakness and continued jitters in global financial markets will likely generate more foreign capital outflows.                    Second, the Indonesian economy - both domestic demand and exports - were already weak even before the breakout of COVID-19 occurred (Chart II-3).  Chart II-2Indonesia: Falling US Rates Stopped Mattering Chart II-3Indonesia: Domestic Demand Was Weak Before COVID-19 Outbreak   Chart II-4Indonesia: Struggling Under High Lending Rates With imposition of social distancing measures, output and nominal incomes will contract (Chart II-4). Third, the nation’s very underdeveloped health care system makes it more vulnerable to a pandemic compared to other mainstream EM countries. For example, the number of hospital beds per 1000 people - at 1.2 - is among the lowest within the mainstream EM universe. We discuss this issue for EM in greater detail in our most recent weekly report. In brief, it will take a longer time for this nation to overcome the pandemic and get its economy back on track. Fourth, Indonesia - as with many EM countries - is short on both social safety programs and fiscal stabilizers that are available in North Asian countries, Europe and the US. Moreover, the country lacks the administrative system needed to promptly execute fiscal stimulus. Besides, the economic stimulus announced by the Indonesian authorities is so far insufficient to meaningfully moderate the economic blow. The government announced a fiscal stimulus that barely amounts to 1% of GDP. This will do little to counter the recession that the nation’s economy is now entering. On the monetary policy front, though the central bank has been cutting policy rates and injecting local currency liquidity into the system, this will only help reduce liquidity stress. It will not directly aid ailing households and small businesses suffering from an income shock. Critically, prime lending rates have not dropped despite dramatic cuts in policy rates (Chart II-4). Chart II-5Bank Stocks - Last Shoe To Drop - Are Unraveling Now Meanwhile, the government’s decision to grant a debt servicing holiday to borrowers will only help temporarily. These borrowers will still need to repay their debts at some point down the line. Given the magnitude and uncertain duration of their income loss, there is no guarantee they will be in a position to service their debt after the pandemic is over. Eventually, Indonesian commercial banks will experience a large increase in non-performing loans (NPLs). Overall, the plunge in domestic demand combined with the fall in global trade and commodities prices entails that Indonesia is heading into its first recession since 1998. Given Indonesia has for many years been one of the darlings of EM investors, a recession in Indonesia and global flight to safety herald continued liquidation in its financial markets. Both local government bond yields and corporate US dollar bonds yields are breaking out. Rising borrowing costs amidst the recession will escalate the selloff in equities. Remarkably, non-financial stocks and small-caps have already fallen by 40% and 55% in US dollar terms, respectively (Chart II-5, top two panels). It was banks stocks – which comprise 35% of total market cap – that were holding up the overall index (Chart II-5, bottom panel). Given banks will likely experience rising defaults as discussed above, their share prices have more risk to the downside. Bottom Line: Absolute return investors should stay put on Indonesian risk assets for now. We maintain our short position on the rupiah versus the US dollar. EM-dedicated equity investors should keep underweighting Indonesian equities within an EM equity portfolio. Meanwhile, EM-dedicated fixed income investors should continue to underweight Indonesian local currency bonds as well as sovereign and corporate credit. Ayman Kawtharani Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Extreme global economic uncertainty has pushed demand for USD higher, and forced investors to liquidate gold holdings to raise cash for margin calls and to provide precautionary balances. Gold endured a succession of down moves that elected our stop, leaving us with a 24% gain on the long-standing portfolio-hedge recommendation. Gold failed to deliver on portfolio protection at the onset of the market drop, but we believe this is largely a result of liquidation of positions in the wake of the record price volatility in commodities generally that has attended the COVID-19 pandemic. In the run-up to the GFC in 2008 and the COVID-19 crises, gold reached cyclical highs and was amongst the best performing assets. Once these crises hit and liquidity collapsed, investors were forced to book gains on their winners – including gold – to cover losses elsewhere. Additionally, the yellow metal provided a liquid source of US dollars to foreign investors and sovereigns with large dollar debts and expanding holes in their budgets. We remain constructive toward gold and will be re-opening our long position at tonight’s close. Feature The US dollar is essential to the global economy due to its dominant use in international trade invoicing and to a massive – $12 Trillion – foreign dollar-denominated pile of debt.1 As extreme global economic stress pushed up the demand for dollars, a market risk-off period has been transformed into a broad-based asset liquidation. In this report, we revisit our tactical and strategic stance on gold considering the global COVID-19-induced selloff and ongoing monetary and fiscal policy responses to it. COVID-19-Induced Uncertainty Upends Asset Correlations As investors rushed for liquid dollar assets amid rising worries re the length of the pause in global economic activity, past cross-asset correlations were disrupted and traditional safe-assets contributed to portfolio volatility. The recent equity selloff dragged gold and other safe assets in its wake. As investors rushed for liquid dollar assets amid rising worries re the length of the pause in global economic activity, past cross-asset correlations were disrupted and traditional safe-assets contributed to portfolio volatility (Chart of the Week).2 Gold prices, in particular, experienced a succession of rapid shifts in value since the beginning of this year: Up 10% from Jan 1 to Feb 24, down 12% from Feb 24 to Mar 19, and up 10% since Mar 19 (Chart 2, panel 1). These massive moves pushed gold’s implied volatility to its highest level since 2008. Chart of the WeekVolatility In Safe Assets Chart 2Large Moves In Gold Prices YTD A $1,575/oz stop to our long-standing gold recommendation was triggered on March 13, leaving us with a 24% gain, ahead of gold’s decline to $1,475/oz. We argued in previous reports the probability of a technical pullback remained elevated based on our Tactical Composite Indicator (Chart 2, panel 2). The dollar’s appreciation – driven by heightened uncertainty and pronounced illiquidity in offshore dollar markets – acted as a catalyst to the gold correction. A continued dollar shortage remains a chief risk to both our bullish gold and 2H20 EM activity rebound views. Global non-US banks’ reliance on US dollar and wholesale funding has greatly expanded since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) (Chart 3, panel 1). This increases bank’s reliance on foreign exchange swap markets to secure marginal funding, which pushes up financing costs when demand for dollar asset spikes (Chart 3, panel 2). Chart 3Greater Non-US Banks’ Funding Fragility Chart 4USD Gains From Rising Market-Wide Risk Aversion Generally, when USD supply ex-US expands in the so-called Eurodollar market, the global trade and banking systems function properly. In periods of low systematic volatility – an indication of low market-wide risk aversion – capital flows from safe US assets to stocks, high-yield bonds, and foreign markets in the search for stronger returns. In times of stress, however, risk-aversion spikes and demand for dollar surges as foreigners pile into liquid assets (Chart 4). Since global banks are highly interdependent, a troubled non-US bank unable to cover its dollar liabilities will be forced to dump assets to acquire USD at any price, creating additional stress amongst banks and increasing the convenience yield of holding on to dollar assets (Chart 5). Chart 5USD shortage Forces Foreign Banks To Sell Dollar Assets The USD As A Momentum Currency The global dominance of the US dollar in trade, funding and invoicing can create a vicious feedback loop. The global dominance of the US dollar in trade, funding and invoicing can create a vicious feedback loop (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Dollar Strength And Weak Global Growth Loop This makes the dollar a momentum and counter-cyclical currency (Chart 6). It also explains gold’s recent price movements. The recent global liquidation of financial assets for USD is the result of the most severe liquidity crunch since the onset of the GFC in 2008 (Chart 7). Again, gold failed to provide much-needed portfolio protection at the onset of the market drop, since gold holdings often were liquidated to meet margin calls or by sovereigns to fill budget gaps (Chart 8). Chart 6A Weaker Dollar Bodes Well For Commodities The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency Chart 7Liquidity Proxies To Watch A dearth of collateral in repo markets – proxied by rapid increases in primary dealers’ repo fails – typically leads to short-term plunges in gold prices, as the metal is used as an alternative source of loan collateral. Still, we do not interpret this liquidation as a sign that gold’s safe-haven status is fading. In the run-up to both crises, gold was reaching cyclical highs and was amongst the best performing assets. Once the crisis hit and liquidity collapsed, investors were forced to book gains on their winners – including gold – to cover losses elsewhere. Additionally, the yellow metal provided a liquid source of US dollars to foreign investors and sovereigns with large dollar debts and expanding (unfunded) budget obligations. These pressures were particularly acute among EM commodity-exporting countries, which saw revenues compress during the severe drop in cyclical commodities. Chart 8Gold Plunges At the Onset Of Severe Crisis Chart 9Gold Provides Liquidity During Crisis Lastly, scarce high-quality collateral in wholesale markets makes gold swaps a liquid funding source. A dearth of collateral in repo markets – proxied by rapid increases in primary dealers’ repo fails – typically leads to short-term plunges in gold prices, as the metal is used as an alternative source of loan and swap collateral (Chart 9). Swaps effectively release gold previously held in storage to markets, increasing its supply. Gauging The Recovery In Gold Prices Calling the bottom in gold prices depends on how the Fed responds to dollar-funding stress abroad and banks’ reluctance to lend. In the current circumstances, we believe the plunge in gold will be limited compared to the GFC. First, the latest shocks to markets globally come from outside the financial system. There are no pronounced quality concerns in high-quality collateral. Current disruptions are mainly a result of low capital deployment to market-making activities by the financial system. Importantly, banks are now more capitalized, due to tighter post-GFC regulations limiting bank risk-taking. Second, the Fed responded much more rapidly to the current market disruptions. It is taking steps to alleviate liquidity concerns by filling the role of market maker – acting as a dealer of last resort – and encouraging banks to use their available capital to conduct market-making activities. The Fed also acts as the global dollar lender of last resort by providing liquidity globally via swap lines (Chart 10). When the world is short of dollars, funding costs can increase drastically (Chart 11). Swap lines will ease oversea funding pressures, and we expect these will be expanded to more countries if needed. Chart 10Swap Lines Alleviate Funding Stress Chart 11A Rising USD Increases Funding Cost Abroad A few indicators are signaling some liquidity and dollar funding stress remains in the system. We believe the rapid intervention by global central banks over the course of the current market stress will keep any liquidity squeeze from becoming a solvency and collateral quality crisis (Chart 12). However, it is difficult to know the exact level central banks are targeting, and given the nature of the shock, a lot will depend on the fiscal policy response. We believe gold prices – along with the indicators shown in Chart 7 – provide valuable information on the effectiveness of central banks’ actions. Thus, gold’s recent recovery is a prescient signal. Still, a few indicators are signaling some liquidity and dollar funding stress remains in the system. With prices back at $1580/oz, it is possible gold prices would be liquidated in a renewed equity selloff. However, our tactical composite indicator is slightly better positioned now and with US treasury yields now close to zero, gold’s ability to hedge market risk will increase relative to bonds. This inclines us to think the move would be less severe compared to the early March 11% plunge. Chart 12Fiscal And Monetary Actions Will Ease Credit Shock Given these considerations, we recommend going long gold at tonight’s close. Longer-Term, Gold’s Upside Potential Is Attractive The expanding fiscal deficit also tackles the lack of collateral by increasing the issuance of Treasury Notes and Bills. Strategically, gold’s appeal has increased sharply following the unprecedented monetary and fiscal responses to the COVID-19 shock. Over the next 6-12 months, we expect the US dollar will weaken and respond to interest rate differentials as uncertainty dissipates – presuming, of course, the COVID-19 shock is controlled and contained in most countries (Chart 13). The global supply of US dollars will increase from the Fed’s balance sheet expansion, swap lines to foreign banks, and a deepening US current account deficit following the unprecedented $2 trillion fiscal-stimulus package approved by the US Congress. Importantly, the expanding fiscal deficit also tackles the lack of collateral by increasing the issuance of Treasury Notes and Bills. Chart 13The USD Is Diverging From Rates Differentials Longer-term, the odds of higher inflation have risen. Consequently, we expect the vicious circle illustrated above will work in reverse (Diagram 2). EM Asia economic growth – led by a recovery in China – will outpace that of the US. This will generate capital outflows from the US to riskier emerging markets, forcing the dollar down until the Fed moves to raise rates – something we do not expect over the next 12 months. Thus, the opportunity cost of holding gold likely will remain low for an extended period (Chart 14). Diagram 2A Virtuous Cycle Will Start In 2H20 Longer-term, the odds of higher inflation have risen. However, our base case is the inflationary scenario is more likely to develop over the next 2 years. Low and falling inflation expectations can be expected for an extended period – the result of the global shut-down and collapsed commodity prices, particularly oil. This would suggest fixed-income markets will be pricing in low rates for the foreseeable future until an actual inflation threat is apparent. Still, if our call on oil is correct – i.e., our expectation Brent crude oil will be trading at $45/bbl by year-end, and clear $60/bbl by 2Q21 as the global economy recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic and the OPEC 2.0 market-share war ceases – markets could be pricing to higher inflation expectations next year, which would benefit gold.3 In addition, the massive fiscal and monetary stimulus being deployed globally will remain in the system for an extended period, which could stoke inflationary pressures. Chart 14Gold's Opportunity Cost Will Remain Low Chart 15Gold Will Be Supported In A Savings Glut Conversely, there is a non-negligible deflation risk stemming from a semi-permanent increase in precautionary savings as a result of the traumatic pandemic episode.4 Even so, gold can benefit from an increasing pool of savings (Chart 15). Bottom Line: We are going long gold at tonight’s close. The tactical (easing in dollar-funding crisis), cyclical (weakening US dollar and low real interest rates), and strategic (policy-induced inflationary pressure) horizons are all supportive for adding gold positions to a diversified portfolio.   Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight The makings of a deal among the three largest oil producers in the world – the US, Russia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) continue to fall into place. Russia earlier this week leaked it would not be increasing output after the OPEC 2.0 1Q20 production cuts expired March 31, saying such an increase would be unprofitable. US President Donald Trump is offering to broker talks between KSA and Russia, with the Texas Railroad Commission – the historical regulator of output in the Lone Star State – indicating it would be willing to resume its prior role provided other states and countries got on board. For its part, KSA has made it clear it will not bear the burden of re-balancing global markets unless this burden is shared by all producers – including the US (Chart 16). Base Metals: Neutral Copper prices remain relatively well supported, even as other commodities are pressured lower. COVID-19-induced shipping delays at South African, particularly out of Durban, could tighten copper markets, just as major economies begin recovering from lockdowns and ramp infrastructure projects. Fastmarkets MB noted refining charges are weakening as supply contracts due to shipping delays. Precious Metals: Neutral We are leaving a standing buy order for spot Palladium if it trades to $2,000/oz. Once the COVID-19 pandemic has bee contained and economies begin returning to normal, the fundamental tightness we outlined in our February 27 report our February 27 report – falling supplies exacerbated by a derelict South African power-grid trying to cover steadily increasing demand and more stringent pollution restrictions – will re-assert itself (Chart 17). Ags/Softs:  Underweight CBOT Corn futures hedged lower on Tuesday after the USDA predicted corn acreage will reach 97mm in 2020, the largest in eight years and well above market expectations of 94mm. This comes at a time when numerous American ethanol plants – which account for 40% of corn usage – are closing in response to the diminished demand for biofuels used for gasoline, due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Corn futures ended the month down 7.1%, the largest decline since August. The USDA sees soybeans acres planted rising 10% in 2020, below average expectations and wheat acres planted slipping 1% to 44.7mm, the lowest since 1919. Wheat was down 0.75¢, while soybeans were up 3.75¢ at Tuesday’s close. Chart 16Oil Prices Collapsed After the Market-Share War Chart 17Palladium Deficit To Widen This Year     Footnotes 1     Please see our weekly report titled OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices published March 5, 2020. 2     Following our US Bond strategist, the liquidity shock discussed in this report means investors are finding it more expensive or difficult to transact in certain markets because of scares amount of capital being deployed to those areas. This does not necessarily imply a lack of buyers of credit risk. Please see BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy report entitled Life At The Zero Bound published by BCA Research’s US Bond Strategy March 24, 2020. 3    Please see the Special Report we published with BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy March 30, 2020, entitled OPEC 3.0 In the Offing? It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please see BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy report entitled Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V published March 27, 2020.     Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights The economic shutdown needed to exhaust the coronavirus pandemic must last much longer than is anticipated. For example, in Italy it must last 24 weeks. If the economy is reopened too soon, the pandemic will reignite in a second wave later this year, just as in 1918. Take the 12 percent profit in the tactical overweight to equities versus bonds and go neutral. Stay underweight European equities and euro area banks given their high sensitivity to the economy. Stay overweight US T-bonds versus German bunds and Swiss bonds. All high-quality bond yields will eventually reach the lower bound of -1 percent, making US T-bonds the most attractive in class. The euro is a structural overweight but a tactical neutral – because in equity market corrections the repatriation of foreign investments into domestic cash boosts the demand for dollars relative to the euro. Fractal trades: Go long Australia versus New Zealand. Short palladium versus nickel was closed at 32 percent profit. Feature “You’ve got to understand that you don’t make the timeline, the virus makes the timeline” – Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases It’s A Biological Crisis The coronavirus crisis is first and foremost a biological crisis. This makes it fundamentally different to the 2008 global financial crisis, the 2000 dot com bust, the 1990 Japanese crash, and the 1930s Great Depression – all of which were financial crises needing financial and economic cures. As such, the current crisis needs to be analysed very differently. Crucially, the financial and economic policy responses to the coronavirus crisis are only a palliative, not a cure. The cure is to exhaust the coronavirus pandemic. But to exhaust the pandemic without overburdening stretched healthcare systems will require shutting the economy for months. If the economy is reopened too soon, then the pandemic will reignite in a second and a possible third wave just as in 1918-19 (Chart of the Week). Chart I-1If The Economy Is Reopened Too Soon The Pandemic Will Reignite, Just As In 1918-19 The US fiscal stimulus package amounts to 10 percent of annual GDP. But if exhausting the pandemic requires a third of the economy to be shut for a third of the year, then the economy would lose one ninth, or 11 percent, of its annual output. Hence, despite the biggest fiscal boost of all time, the economy would end up shrinking (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Fiscal Stimulus Is Massive, But Might Not Be Enough Meanwhile, Germany’s willingness to remove the ‘debt brake’ that limits its structural federal deficit to 0.35 percent of GDP, the willingness to issue euro ‘corona-bonds’, and the ECB’s willingness to increase the size and breath of its asset-purchase program are minor details in a much bigger story. Rather like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Ignore the minor details and concentrate on the bigger story. How long must the economy stay shut to exhaust the pandemic? The Crucial Metric Is Not Mortality, It Is Morbidity Some people counter that in shutting the economy, “the cure is worse than the disease”. They argue that most coronavirus victims suffer mild or no illness. Moreover, the mortality rate is low and might not be much higher than that of the flu. Even if this turns out to be true, the argument misses the point. Death requires very little medical intervention and resource, whereas severe illness requires massive medical intervention and resource. Moreover, when the severe illness is a respiratory illness, it leaves the sufferer struggling to breathe and needing ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU). No civilized society can deny an ICU to somebody who is struggling to breathe. Therefore, the most important metric for the coronavirus crisis is not its mortality rate, but rather its morbidity (severe illness) rate. Or more specifically, the morbidity rate versus the economy’s ICU capacity. How long must the economy stay shut to exhaust the pandemic? Enter the Diamond Princess. The cruise ship turned into a laboratory for the coronavirus because all 3700 passengers and crew were quarantined and tested for the infection. Of the 700 people who tested positive, 11 have subsequently died. But the more important point is that 45 people needed ICU treatment, meaning the coronavirus morbidity rate was four times its mortality rate (Table I-1). Table I-1On The Diamond Princess, The COVID-19 Morbidity Rate Was Four Times Its Mortality Rate A separate study by the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre in the UK corroborates this, suggesting that the coronavirus morbidity rate is around three times the mortality rate and that the average time in an ICU for a coronavirus patient is half a week.1 Let’s be optimistic and assume that the coronavirus mortality rate is around 0.3 percent and that its morbidity rate is around three times higher at 1 percent. This means that if a hundred thousand people get infected, one thousand will need ICU treatment. But even advanced economies have only a dozen or so ICU beds per hundred thousand people. For example, Italy has 12.5 (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Advanced Economies Have Only A Dozen Or So ICU Beds Per Hundred Thousand People If each severely ill coronavirus patient averages half a week in an ICU, this means that only 2500 Italians out of hundred thousand, or 2.5 percent of the population, can get infected every week before the ICU capacity is breached. Northern Italy, specifically Lombardy, went into crisis because it allowed its coronavirus infection rate to breach its ICU capacity. Yet ‘flattening the curve’ of infections comes at a cost. Keeping the weekly infection rate below ICU capacity means that the infection rate must be suppressed for longer to achieve the holy grail of ‘herd immunity’. This is the point when around 60 percent of the population have caught the disease. To achieve herd immunity without breaching its ICU capacity, Italy would have to shut its economy for 24 weeks. Other economies might need less or more time depending on their own morbidity rates versus ICU capacity, but it would still be a minimum of many months. Meaning that the draconian measures that flatten the infection curve – quarantining, social distancing, and essentially shutting the economy – must also stay in place for many months after infection rates have stopped rising. Therein lies the big problem.2 If The Economy Reopens Too Soon The Pandemic Will Reignite A pandemic is a classic complex adaptive system. Its evolution depends on the sum of many millions of individual actions which themselves depend on the evolving pandemic data.  When mortality, morbidity and infection rates are surging the public will sense an emergency, and so accept the loss of liberty and livelihood that comes from quarantining and shutting the economy. The result is that ‘R-nought’ – the number of people that each infected person infects – drops, which suppresses the pandemic. If the economy reopens too soon, the pandemic will reignite in a second wave. But once infection rates level off or reverse, the public’s sense of emergency dissipates. People push back against the continued loss of liberty and livelihood. As do policymakers, especially those seeking imminent re-election. The result is that R-nought reaccelerates. In fact, the emergency has not dissipated. Once R-nought reaccelerates, the large proportion of the population who have not been infected are sitting ducks for the virus. Therefore, if the economy reopens too soon, the pandemic will reignite in a second wave (Chart I-4). Chart I-4When A Large Proportion Of The Population Is Uninfected, ‘R-Nought’ Must Stay Low History provides a salutary warning. During the 1918-19 pandemic, no US city experienced a second wave while its main battery of social distancing policies remained in place. Second waves only occurred after the city economies were reopened too soon.3 Implications For The Financial Markets The key message is that the economic shutdown must last longer than is anticipated. And that if the economy is reopened too soon, the pandemic will reignite in a second wave later this year. Therefore: 1. Move to neutral equities tactically: Our March 12 tactical recommendation to overweight equities versus bonds (long S&P500 versus German 30-year bund) achieved its 12 percent profit target and is now closed (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Technical Rebound Has Happened As Predicted 2. Overweight equities on a long-term horizon: Investors with a 2 year or longer horizon beyond the pandemic should overweight equities versus bonds – because the prospective annualised return from equities, 6 percent, is much more attractive than that from bonds, 1 percent (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6The Prospective Annual Return From Equities At 6 Percent… Chart I-7...Is Much More Attractive Than 1 Percent From Bonds 3. Underweight European equities: Our 2020 recommendation to underweight the euro area relative to the US and Japan is providing rich rewards as the S&P 500 has outperformed by 8 percent, and the Nikkei 225 has outperformed by 10 percent. Given the economic sensitivity of the Eurostoxx 50, stay underweight. 4. Underweight euro area banks: Likewise, euro area banks have underperformed the market by almost 25 percent this year. But it is too soon to remove this underweight. 5. Overweight US T-bonds versus German bunds and Swiss bonds: The US 30-year T-bond has outperformed the German 30-year bund by 18 percent this year. Stick with this position. Ultimately, all high-quality bond yields are going to hit the lower bound of -1 percent, making US T-bonds the most attractive in class. 6. The euro is a structural overweight but a tactical neutral: The structural pecking order for currencies is the reverse of bonds. However, during equity market corrections the repatriation of foreign investments into domestic cash boosts the demand for dollars relative to other currencies. This warrants a tactically neutral stance to the euro. Fractal Trading System* The fractal trading system has performed very well during the recent crisis. Long S&P 500 versus the German 30-year bund delivered its 12 percent profit target. And short palladium versus nickel delivered its 32 percent profit target. This week’s recommended trade is to go long Australia versus New Zealand expressed through their MSCI (US$) indexes. The profit target is 12 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 64 percent. Chart I-8Australia Vs. New Zealand When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Source: ICNARC report on COVID-19 in critical care, 27 March 2020 2 If 60 percent are infected, then 0.6 percent would require an ICU. This equates to 600 people out of a hundred thousand for whom there are 12.5 ICUs. If the average stay in the ICU is half a week, this would require 600/12.5 half weeks, or 0.5*600/12.5 full weeks = 24 weeks. 3 Source: Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic; Hatchett, Mecher, and Lipsitch Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations