Economy

Highlights Misunderstanding 1: The danger of Covid-19 is its short-term mortality rate. In fact, the danger of Covid-19 is its long-term mortality and morbidity rate. Misunderstanding 2: The government-imposed lockdown causes the pandemic recession. In fact, the pandemic causes the pandemic recession. Misunderstanding 3: The pandemic’s main economic casualty is output. In fact, the pandemic’s main economic casualty is employment. Misunderstanding 4: The pandemic is a temporary shock to the way we live, work, and interact. In fact, the pandemic is accelerating long-term shifts in the way we live, work, and interact. Misunderstanding 5: The pandemic is pulling Europe apart. In fact, the pandemic is pulling Europe together. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Pandemic Is Pulling Europe Together Covid-19 is a novel disease. And living through a pandemic is a novel experience for most of us. The result is that many things are not fully understood. In this report, we pull together five major misunderstandings about the Covid-19 pandemic. Or at least, five topics on which we disagree with the mainstream narratives. Misunderstanding 1: The danger of Covid-19 is its short-term mortality rate. Truth 1: The danger of Covid-19 is its long-term mortality and morbidity rate. Some people argue that the danger of Covid-19 is overstated. The mortality rate seems low, especially in the new waves of the pandemic. These people argue that we should just let the pandemic rip to achieve so-called ‘herd immunity’. Yet this focus on the low immediate mortality rate misunderstands the true danger (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Focussing On Covid-19’s Low Immediate Mortality Rate Misunderstands The Danger The true danger might come from the long-term impact on mortality and morbidity. A good analogy is a non-lethal dose of radiation. It won’t kill you straightaway, and you might not even feel any immediate ill effects, but the exposure does irreparable long-term harm. Unlike other diseases, Covid-19 appears to have long-term sequelae. Unlike other diseases, Covid-19 appears to have long-term sequelae. It can permanently damage your respiratory, vascular, and metabolic systems. As The Lancet points out:1 “Weeks and months after the onset of Covid-19, people continue to suffer. 78 of 100 patients in an observational cohort study who had recovered from Covid-19 had abnormal findings on cardiovascular MRI and 36 reported dyspnoea and unusual fatigue… these patients are not only those recovering from the severe form of the acute disease, but also those who had mild and moderate disease. Long-term sequelae of Covid-19 are unknown… Other concerns are rising: does it cause diabetes, or other metabolic disorders? Will patients develop interstitial lung disease? We owe good answers on the long-term consequences of the disease to our patients and healthcare providers.” Until we know these answers, letting the pandemic rip to achieve herd-immunity is a very dangerous misunderstanding. Misunderstanding 2: The government-imposed lockdown causes the pandemic recession. Truth 2: The pandemic causes the pandemic recession. A pandemic is a classic complex adaptive system, in which there is constant feedback from millions of individual human actions to the pandemic, and from the pandemic to millions of individual human actions. It is this complex adaptive behaviour that generates a pandemic’s classic waves of infection, as well as its recessions. In response to an escalating pandemic, our instinct for self-preservation makes us go into our shells. In response to an escalating pandemic, our instinct for self-preservation makes us go into our shells. We shun crowds and public places, with the result that so-called ‘social consumption’ collapses. The misunderstanding is that the government-imposed lockdown causes the collapse in social consumption. In fact, this is a classic confusion between correlation and causation. The true cause of the recession is that the escalating pandemic is making millions of people go into their shells. But to the extent that an escalating pandemic also leads to an escalating lockdown, many people confuse the correlated lockdown with the underlying cause, the escalating pandemic. As we have previously pointed out, Sweden imposed no lockdown, while its neighbour Denmark imposed the most extreme lockdown in Europe. If it was the government-imposed lockdown that caused the recession, then the economy of no-lockdown Sweden should have fared much better than that of lockdown Denmark. In fact, based on the rise in unemployment rates, no-lockdown Sweden performed worse than lockdown Denmark (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3No-Lockdown Sweden Performed No Better... Chart I-4...Than Lockdown Denmark Misunderstanding 3: The pandemic’s main economic casualty is output. Truth 3: The pandemic’s main economic casualty is employment. The widespread use of physical distancing and face masks restricts any activity that requires the use of your mouth and nose in proximity to others. These activities are concentrated in three highly labour-intensive sectors: hospitality, retail, and transport. Using the US as a template, hospitality, retail, and transport contribute 12 percent of economic output, but employ 25 percent of all workers (Table I-1). If the pandemic forces these sectors to operate one third below full capacity, the economy will lose a tolerable 4 percent of output. But it will lose a devastating 8.3 percent of jobs. And on less optimistic assumptions, the job destruction could rise to well over 10 percent. Table I-1Sectors Hurt By Social Distancing Employ 25% Of All Workers Conversely, sectors which are unaffected by physical distancing and face masks make a much bigger contribution to economic output relative to employment. Financial activities generate 19 percent of economic output, but just 6 percent of jobs. Information technology generates 5 percent of output, but just 2 percent of jobs. Sectors hurt by social distancing employ 25 percent of all workers. Hence, the main economic casualty of the pandemic is not output. The main casualty is employment (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Worse, as employment suffers much more than output, the pandemic is devastating low-paid jobs. Chart I-5The Main Economic Casualty Of The Pandemic Is Employment… Chart I-6…Not ##br##Output Misunderstanding 4: The pandemic is a temporary shock to the way we live, work, and interact. Truth 4: The pandemic is accelerating long-term shifts in the way we live, work, and interact. The pandemic appears to have crystallised many shifts in consumer and business behaviour: for example, de-urbanisation, the shift from offline to online retailing, the shift from office working to remote working, and the shift from business travel to virtual meetings. In fact, these shifts were already in motion well before the pandemic hit (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The Pandemic Is Accelerating The Structural Shifts To De-Urbanisation… Chart I-8…And Online ##br##Shopping If the pandemic suddenly ended tomorrow, would people flock back to full-time office work in city centres? Would they flock back to bricks and mortar retailers? Would they return to the same intensity of long-haul business travel? We think not, because the shifts from these activities are not temporary. They are structural. The pandemic is devastating low-paid jobs. The pandemic has accelerated the hollowing out of labour-intensive industries such as bricks and mortar retailing, city centre cafes, bars and restaurants, and commercial travel. Combined with the ongoing threat to jobs from AI, this hollowing out process is blighting the job prospects of a generation, creating large numbers of underemployed and unemployed workers. Misunderstanding 5: The pandemic is pulling Europe apart. Truth 5: The pandemic is pulling Europe together. Let’s end on a positive note. The pandemic has allowed Europe to smash two major taboos: explicit fiscal transfers across countries, and the large-scale issuance of common EU bonds. The EU recovery plan also starts discussions on how the EU can ‘increase its own resources’. Which is to say, raise its own taxes. 2020 might turn out to be the most important year for European integration. The EU’s €750 billion ‘Next Generation’ recovery plan comprises €390 billion of grants whose main beneficiaries will be Italy and Spain – and these grants will be funded by common EU issuance. In breaking the long-standing taboos of fiscal transfers and common issuance, Next Generation constitutes a giant step towards European integration. Specifically, Italy’s net grant entitlement is likely to outweigh its contributions to the EU’s 2021-27 budget cycle. Thereby, Italy will flip from a net contributor to a net recipient of EU funds. The willingness to flip the sign of Italy’s contribution marks a sea-change in the EU’s attitude on fiscal solidarity, whose long-term significance should not be underestimated. 2020 might turn out to be the most important year for European integration. The irony is that it took a global pandemic to achieve it. Investment Conclusions The huge and growing slack in labour markets means that zero and negative interest rate policy will become a permanent feature of our lives. Hence, the relatively higher yielding 30-year US T-bond remains an effective hedge against stock market dislocations, as it did in March. Equity sectors whose profits can thrive off the shifts in the way we live, work, and interact, will outperform – specifically, technology, biotechnology, healthcare, and communications. Thereby, stock markets with an overweighting to these sectors will also outperform. The devastation of low-paying jobs means that bank credit growth is set to remain structurally weak or even non-existent. As such, banks should be bought for tactical countertrend moves (as now), but not for the long term. The yield spreads on euro area ‘periphery’ bonds over Germany and France will continue to tighten, and ultimately reach zero (Chart of the Week and Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Pandemic Is Pulling Europe Together Fractal Trading System* Within the EM universe, the strong outperformance of India versus Czech Republic is vulnerable to a countertrend sell-off. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short MSCI India versus MSCI Czech Republic. The profit target and symmetrical stop-loss is set at 8 percent. Chart I-10MSCI: India Vs. Czech Republic In other trades, long USD/PLN achieved its 4 percent profit target, and short AUD/CHF reached the end of its holding period in profit. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 57 percent. 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 Please see The Lancet, Long-term consequences of Covid-19: research needs, September 1, 2020. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights The first presidential debate does not change our subjective judgment on Trump’s odds of victory (35%), but our quantitative election model is flagging a major risk to this view. The V-shaped economic recovery is greatly improving Trump’s odds in key swing states – including Michigan – according to our model. We will upgrade Trump’s chances if the Republicans agree to a fiscal bill that removes the risk of further financial turmoil in the final month of the campaign. A stock market selloff combined with rising COVID-19 cases is a deadly combination for a president whose re-election bid is on thin ice. The best outcome for financial markets is a stimulus deal now, a Biden victory, and a Republican Senate. The worst outcome is no stimulus and a Democratic sweep, but there would be a silver lining in the form of major fiscal expansion in 2021. Feature The shouting match, er, debate between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden probably did not change many voters’ minds. Trump started stronger, Biden finished stronger. The key takeaway is that Biden lived to fight another day. At 77 years old, Biden’s age has been a concern, but he did not appear incoherent like he did in the Democratic primary election.1 From a market perspective, the debate revealed the following: The Republican failure to pass a new fiscal relief bill is hurting their re-election bid, as Biden successfully criticized Trump for not providing new resources amid the national crisis. The next 24-48 hours are critical on our view that the Senate GOP will capitulate to a deal. Joe Biden will raise taxes regardless of the recession. There is speculation that Democrats might delay tax hikes to aid the recovery but Biden did not give reason for optimism. China faces pressure from both parties. Trump blames China for the pandemic and recession while Biden hammered Trump for being weak on China. Biden is trying to steal back the thunder on manufacturing and he emphasized on-shoring more than Trump. Decoupling from China will continue regardless of the election outcome. Table 1Recessions Weigh On Incumbent Win Rates We have given Trump a 35% chance of winning since March, based on the historical odds of an incumbent party winning when a recession occurs in the year of the election. However, the economic recovery now poses a clear risk to this view. First, the historical odds rise to 50/50 if the recession ends before the election (Table 1). Second, our quantitative election model now gives Trump a 49% chance of victory, discussed below. Subjectively, we are keeping Trump at 35% because a failure to pass fiscal relief will cause a stock market selloff and remove the last leg of Trump’s re-election bid. But we will upgrade Trump if there is a relief bill and his polling gains momentum. Quant Model Upgrades Trump To 49% Odds Of Victory Our quantitative election model is upgrading Trump’s odds, having taken in the just-released Philly Fed’s coincident economic index for the month of August (Chart 1). The US economy continues to recover, and the more the data improve, the better Trump’s odds of winning the election. Chart 1Quant Model Signals Trump At 49% Odds, Michigan A Toss-Up Our quant model consists of (1) state-by-state economic indexes (2) a “time for change” variable that rewards the incumbent party after a four-year term but penalizes it after an eight-year term in the White House (3) the president’s margins of victory in the previous election (3) the range of Trump’s approval rating (rather than the level, thus avoiding any concerns about polling understating Trump’s support). Our model now predicts that Trump will win 259 Electoral College votes, an increase of 29 votes from our August update by flipping Florida back into the Republican camp with a ~60% probability. Thus Trump’s probability of winning the election has risen by 4ppt to 49%. Remarkably Michigan has risen into the ranks of a toss-up state, with a 49.6% chance of a Republican win. The coincident indicators in this state have improved drastically over the past three months and our model uses a three-month rate of change (Chart 2). Our model also gives greater weight to these indicators the closer we get to the election. In discussions with many clients we have observed that the model seemed to be underrating the key upper Midwestern battlegrounds, but now that is changing. The odds that Trump could win New Hampshire and Nevada have also improved substantially, to 41% and 25% respectively. Chart 2State Economic Indicators Put MI, NH, NV Into Play? Chart 3Swing State Wages Turning Up Still, as it stands, Democrats are still expected to win Michigan, as well as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, thus pulling off a narrow victory in the Electoral College. Chart 4Median Family Income Improved However, the trend is in Trump’s favor. Barring very bad economic news in September, the model’s final reading on October 23 may even favor Trump for re-election. The state economic indicators are supported by additional factors: The V-shape recovery is pronounced in workers’ wages, including swing states that voted for Trump (Chart 3). Median family income is still growing – and slightly faster than when Trump took office (Chart 4). Thus it is clear that the economic recovery is a growing risk to our view that Biden will win in a Democratic clean sweep of US government. Trump Faces Imminent Risks From Pandemic And Recession In the debate, Trump successfully deflected criticisms of his handling of the economy and pinned the blame for the coronavirus on China. But a worsening of either of these factors would spell his doom in the final month of the campaign. Trump’s approval rating is still weak, though a sharp improvement would put him on the trajectory that won Presidents Bush and Obama re-election (Chart 5). Chart 5Trump Approval Rating Recovering Chart 6Trump Looks Better In Swing State Polling Biden’s lead in head-to-head polling in the swing states is stable over the course of the year so far, though Trump has recently improved and is close to or within the typical margin of error for these polls. Chart 7Trump Must Beware Whiplash From Pandemic And Recession What should prove decisive in the final month is the trajectory of the pandemic and the economy. Trump’s approval on the economy is just barely above 50%, but his handling of COVID-19 has relapsed (Chart 7). The pandemic will bring bad news over the coming month, but it is not clear how bad. New daily cases of COVID-19 are rising in the US as a whole and in key swing states like Wisconsin, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. It makes sense to see cases springing up in states that are improving rapidly in economic terms, including these states and Nevada and New Hampshire (Charts 8A & 8B). As deaths increase, bad news will affect consumers’ behavior and sentiment. Chart 8ACOVID-19 Uptick A Major Risk To Trump Chart 8BCOVID-19 Uptick A Major Risk To Trump New fiscal relief would sustain the economy even if social distancing and government restrictions increase in October to fend off this third wave in infections. Meanwhile the absence of fiscal relief will weigh on Trump’s fragile approval on the economy. Voters have consistently punished both the president and the Congress for brinksmanship over fiscal deadlines (Charts 9A & 9B). Chart 9AVoters Give Thumbs Down For Fiscal Dysfunction Chart 9BVoters Give Thumbs Down For Fiscal Dysfunction Markets also sell off when policymakers threaten to take the US over a fiscal cliff (Charts 10A & 10B). So far this is also the case in September 2020, though the jury is out. Chart 10AMarkets Sell Off During Fiscal Cliffs Chart 10BMarkets Sell Off During Fiscal Cliffs Can President Trump Stimulate By Executive Order? The president has few unilateral alternatives to a congressional fiscal bill. Chart 11Unilateral Stimulus Will Not Save Markets Several clients have asked about the Treasury’s general account, which currently holds over $1.5 trillion in cash (Chart 11). The Treasury issued lots of bonds and temporarily over-prepared for what is necessary to finance the US’s surging deficits, as the economic recovery has seen better-than-expected revenues. Our US bond strategist addressed this issue in a recent report entitled “The Case Against The Money Supply.” Could Trump unilaterally re-purpose these funds as economic stimulus if Congress fails to agree on a fiscal bill? We would not put it past the president to try – he is already stimulating by decree – but the courts would issue injunctions since the House has the constitutional power of the purse. In the meantime it would be difficult to implement the president’s orders, as with recent executive orders on extending unemployment insurance and deferring the payroll tax. Uncertainty over the US’s fiscal future would increase, not decrease, due to the legal dispute and the simultaneous risk that Republicans who had proved fiscally hawkish would retain the Senate after November 3. Therefore raiding the Treasury account is not a viable solution for markets in the absence of a real stimulus deal. And while voters might approve of the president’s actions in the face of a do-nothing Congress, the market’s negative response would damage sentiment and Trump’s approval on the economy. Investment Takeaways Our subjective reason not to upgrade Trump’s odds from 35% stems from the relationship of politics and financial markets. We have a high conviction view that the equity market will sell off if Republicans fail to conclude a fiscal deal. Financial turmoil in October will undermine recent improvements in the economy, economic sentiment, and opinion polls, as it will undermine Trump’s approval on handling the economy. The rise in COVID-19 cases reinforces the downside risk to markets, especially in the absence of stimulus. We will upgrade Trump’s odds of victory if this contradiction is resolved either through new fiscal relief or through something that improves sentiment on the pandemic, such as a credible vaccine announcement. It is hard to see Trump’s odds improving otherwise. An upgrade of Trump’s odds will increase the substantial risk of a contested election. Volatility will persist through November, with potential to expand into December and possibly even January. However we have a high conviction view that volatility will collapse by the end of January. Election scenarios would then look like this: If no fiscal relief passes, and markets sell prior to the election, then a Democratic clean sweep becomes more likely and will galvanize a move up for risk assets, as investors will look to major fiscal expansion in 2021 and beyond. But if Republicans retain the Senate in this scenario, then the need for a market riot for each future dose of stimulus will unnerve investors and the selloff will be prolonged. However, if fiscal stimulus passes prior to the election as we expect, then markets will view a Democratic sweep as an initial negative due to tax hikes and re-regulation. The prospect of fiscal expansion will only gradually become a positive factor. Thus the post-election adjustment will be short-lived. Global and cyclical equities will outperform. If stimulus passes pre-election, yet Republicans retain the Senate under a President Biden, fear of fiscal obstruction will be postponed, the prospect of tax hikes will collapse, and trade war risk will be at least somewhat reduced (Biden will be soft on global trade ex-China). This is the best outcome for risk assets, especially global equities and cyclical sectors. If stimulus passes, and Trump and the Republicans retain power, any relief rally will be short-lived as the prospect of a global trade war will loom. US equities will continue outperforming global. We are booking a small 5.7% profit on our long French energy / short US energy trade due to the risk of a Trump comeback, which would help the US energy sector. Dollar strength on near-term uncertainty will also be a headwind for this trade until the US election is resolved.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Post-debate polling by CNN suggests that Biden beat expectations, performed better than Trump, and increased in voter favorability, while Trump underperformed Biden and expectations and shed favorability. However, post-debate polls tend to overrepresent Democratic-leaning voters and have not predicted past presidential election results. (Post-debate polls over the course of three debates would have predicted a Clinton win in 2016, a Romney win in 2012, and a Kerry win in 2004.)