Economy

Highlights Economic conditions are quite bad, … : Stay-at-home orders have decimated economic activity, giving rise to massive layoffs. … but policy makers embarked on a mighty initial effort to limit the longer-run effects: Mixing emergency GFC programs with bold new initiatives, the Fed has kept markets functioning and restrained defaults. Congress did its part with the CARES Act, opening the fiscal taps full blast to ease the burden on struggling households and businesses. Now the key question is if they’ll have the stomach to do more: Several businesses will not reopen, and it will be some time before nonfarm payrolls regain their peak. Successive waves of monetary and fiscal accommodation may be required to prevent longer-term scarring. Feature If we could have just one data series to assess the health of the economy, we would choose the monthly employment situation report. Though employment is only a coincident indicator, it is a powerfully self-reinforcing series, influencing consumption (Chart 1), fixed investment and future hiring. The unemployment rate also drives most household credit performance models, thereby influencing banks’ willingness to make auto, credit card and mortgage loans. The ripple effects of job losses can lead to a broader tightening of financial conditions, exacerbating downturns. Chart 1As Goes Employment, So Goes Consumption The April release was grim. The headline unemployment rate leaped by ten percentage points to 14.7%, its highest level since the Depression, but it failed to convey the full picture. With greater than 2% of the labor force having been laid off in each of the two weeks following the survey cut-off date, we estimate that the unemployment rate at the end of April was another four percentage points higher. There is a sizable gap between the 38.6 million workers who have filed for unemployment since mid-March and the 17.3 million newly unemployed captured in the March and April household surveys. The labor market data will get worse before it gets better, and we assume that the unemployment rate will peak above 20%. Astonishing numbers of jobs have been lost in the blink of an eye.  To avoid getting caught up in the unemployment rate’s technicalities, we are focusing on the change in employment. The establishment survey’s nonfarm payrolls series1 shrank by 21 million in March and April, or 14% from its February peak. To put the current episode into context, the 6.3% peak-to-trough decline in payrolls that played out over 25 months from February 2008 through February 2010 was previously the worst of the postwar era, dwarfing the typical recessionary payroll contraction of 1.5-3% (Chart 2). Chart 2Payrolls Have Never Shrunk Anything Like This Before Readers who’ve had their fill of the word “unprecedented” can call the employment contraction breathtaking. One mitigating factor, cited by economists inside and outside of the Fed, is that four-fifths of the layoffs have been characterized as temporary (Chart 3). That is certainly a positive, and we don’t doubt that nearly all bars, restaurants, gyms, hotels and concert venues would like to reopen. They surely planned to when stay-at-home orders were initially implemented, but things have changed over the ensuing ten weeks, and a new research paper suggests that only about three-fifths of laid-off workers will be recalled.2 Chart 3Nearly Every Laid-Off Worker Expects To Be Recalled For most of the postwar era, it took about 18 to 24 months for employment to recover its pre-recession peak. With the onset of the twenty-first century’s “jobless recoveries,” however, employment has rebounded much more slowly across cycles. After the dot-com bust and the global financial crisis, it took four and six years, respectively, to make new highs (Chart 4). The combination of manufacturing outsourcing and the ongoing automation of white-collar tasks is likely to make the slower pace of employment recovery the rule. Investors should anticipate that unemployment will linger at elevated levels through 2021 even in the event of an optimistic scenario. Chart 4Employment Doesn't Rebound Like It Used To Congress Versus The Data When employment falls, the virtuous circle in which changes in employment feed into further changes in employment becomes a vicious circle. Falling employment doesn’t just directly weigh on activity via less consumption and fixed investment; it also leads to reduced credit availability via tighter lending standards. With COVID-19 looming as a massive shock to consumer credit performance, Congress rushed to prop up the income streams of households in harm’s way. It began by sending $1,200 checks to more than 60% of taxpayers (single filers with less than $75,000 of adjusted gross income, and married couples with less than $150,000). One-off $1,200 payments could help strapped households, but the CARES Act’s more significant measure provided for a weekly $600 supplement to state unemployment benefits through the end of July. Weekly state-level benefits average about $400. When coupled with the federal supplement, unemployed workers will receive around $1,000 per week, slightly above the average weekly wage. After applying the stimulus check, the average worker will earn 10% more over his/her first three months of joblessness than s/he did when working full time. Why leave the couch when sitting in front of the TV is more lucrative than venturing outside? The Fed is deliberately aiming to keep households and businesses from defaulting. The direct payments3 and the supplemental unemployment benefits could prevent spending from falling, and consumer loan performance from weakening, as much as they otherwise would given the scale of layoffs. The Department of Labor has tracked the share of the average worker’s income that is replaced by unemployment benefits (the replacement rate) since the late nineties. During the two recessions covered by that sample period, laid-off workers received benefits amounting to just 40% of their previous income (Chart 5). Not surprisingly, consumer loan defaults surged (Chart 6). We are hopeful that credit performance through July, the expiration date of the supplemental benefit program, will be much better than simple regression analyses based on the unemployment rate would project, leaving ample room for a positive surprise. Chart 5Unemployment Benefits Typically Replace Just 40% Of Average Income ... Chart 6... But Consumer Borrowers Might Be Able To Stay Current When They Exceed It Powell Versus The Data In his 60 Minutes interview broadcast on May 17th, Fed Chair Jay Powell repeatedly indicated that the Fed is also pursuing a finger-in-the-dike strategy. Early in the interview, after lamenting the seriousness of the COVID-19 shock, he noted, “the good news is that we have policies that can go some way toward minimizing those [hysteresis-like] effects. And that’s by keeping people and businesses out of insolvency just for maybe three or six more months while the health authorities do what they can do. We can buy time with that.” He came back to the short-term-stimulus-to-prevent-long-term-impairment theme toward the end, explicitly referencing credit performance. “[W]e have tools to try to minimize the longer-run damage to the supply side of the economy. And these tools just involve keeping people solvent, keeping them in their homes, keeping them paying their bills just for maybe a few more months. And the same thing with businesses. Keeping them away from Chapter 11 if it’s available.” It seems reasonable to assume that the worst of the public health news will have passed by the fall. If employment were to rebound in line with re-opening measures, six months of active fiscal and monetary support, from March to September, ought to be enough to stave off long-run damage. As the massive scale of the job losses is revealed, however, we are beginning to rethink our own assumptions about when the economy will truly be able to stand on its own. As Chart 4 suggests, it may be unrealistic to think that the US can return to full employment by 2022, especially as the lockdowns may have given businesses lots of ideas about where they can permanently reduce headcount. The Fed is prepared for such a contingency, to hear the Chair tell it: It may well be that the Fed has to do more. It may be that Congress has to do more. And the reason we’ve got to do more is to avoid longer-run damage to the economy. [W]e’re not out of ammunition by a long shot. No, there’s really no limit to what we can do with these lending programs that we have. So there’s a lot more we can do to support the economy, and we’re committed to doing everything we can as long as we need to. Powell’s take did not come as news to markets, even if it helped stocks romp higher the day after the interview was broadcast. The Fed moved with dizzying speed in March, and its measures have been effective. Taking the corporate bond market as an example, spreads narrowed sharply after the primary- and secondary-market corporate credit facilities were announced on March 23rd (Chart 7) and have fallen to a level consistent with a run-of-the-mill recession (Chart 8). Corporate bond issuance set an all-time monthly record in March, then broke it in April, all without the Fed buying a single bond until mid-May. Chart 7The Fed Tamed The Corporate Bond Market Without Firing A Shot ... Chart 8... And Spreads Are Now At Levels Consistent With A Ho-Hum Recession Investment Implications Investors can count on the Fed’s whatever-it-takes pledge, but they shouldn’t expect the Fed to defend the economy from monumental job losses all by itself. States, cities and towns need cash grants to avoid laying off wide swaths of their workforces, and only Congress and the administration can issue them. Despite their public wavering, we do not think that Republicans will want to spurn masses of unemployed voters and their teachers, police and firefighters ahead of the election. Bailout fatigue and deficit worries will make succeeding iterations of aid packages less generous, though. A wave of defaults and business failures would complicate the near-term recovery playbook. Independent of longer-run effects, financial markets will fare better over the next year if fiscal and monetary policy continue to focus on limiting avoidable busts. We think they will, however begrudgingly, but financial markets already discount this benign outcome. Jay Powell is singing the SIFI banks' song. The combination of Fed support and low valuations makes them especially attractive. Relentlessly accentuating the positive leaves risk assets vulnerable in the near term. We continue to expect some sort of an equity correction and have no appetite for anything but the BB-rated top tier of high yield corporates. Over the tactical 0-to-3-month timeframe, we continue to recommend that multi-asset investors maintain a benchmark equity weighting, while underweighting bonds and overweighting cash. We recommend overweighting equities, underweighting bonds and equal-weighting cash over the cyclical 3-to-12-month timeframe. Within bonds, we are underweight Treasuries and high yield, and overweight investment grade, over both timeframes. The SIFI banks will benefit most directly if policymakers are able to limit consumer and business defaults. Chair Powell’s 60 Minutes refrain should have been music to their management teams’ and stockholders’ ears. They are the rare prominent segment of the market that is viewing the glass as half-empty. Investors have a considerable margin of safety buying them at or near their book value and they continue to be our favorite long idea.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The employment situation report is compiled from a survey of households (used to calculate the size of the labor force and the unemployment rate) and a survey of business establishments (used to calculate net employment gains, hours worked and earnings). The foregoing unemployment discussion referenced the household survey; the subsequent discussion and charts reference the establishment survey. 2 Barrero, Jose Maria, Nicholas Bloom and Steven J. Davis, 2020. "COVID-19 Is Also a Reallocation Shock," NBER Working Paper No. 27137. Accessed May 21, 2020. Using historical data samples analyzed by other researchers, and the responses to the Survey of Business Uncertainty, the authors estimate that only 58% of pandemic-induced layoffs will prove to be temporary. 3 Another round of direct payments is being debated on Capitol Hill as we go to press.

Special Report

Feature The crisis surrounding COVID-19 eventually will pass and hopefully life gradually will return to some degree of normality. Even if it is not possible to completely eradicate the virus, we will have to learn to live with it, assuming effective treatments and vaccines become available. The alternative, that no treatments or vaccines will be developed, seems excessively gloomy. But that does not mean economic conditions will quickly return to pre-crisis levels. The severity of the current contraction guarantees that economies initially will see one or two quarters of very strong growth when businesses resume operations. However, it is hard to be positive about the pace of recovery beyond that initial spurt. The job losses have been horrendous, and they will not all be temporary. A University of Chicago study estimated that 42% of recent job layoffs will end up being permanent.1 Many businesses – especially small ones - may decide against reopening given the uncertainty about future revenue growth and/or the restrictions imposed by new physical distancing procedures. Many small businesses are financially fragile with the median company holding less than one month’s cash on hand.2 According to OpenTable, 25% of US restaurants will close permanently. Against this background, considerable fiscal stimulus will not deliver a strong recovery – it merely limits the severity of the downturn. Any short-term forecasts are highly speculative because so much depends on the path of infections. At the bullish end of the spectrum, perhaps the rate of infection will continue to ease in most major countries and a vaccine will become widely available before the end of the year. At the other extreme, the rate of infection could spike back up as economies reopen, leading to a more virulent second wave later this year. And if you want to be really bearish, the virus may mutate, preventing the development of an effective vaccine. After all, there is no vaccine against the common cold and the vaccine for the regular flu has not eradicated that virus. Opinions about the outlook are all over the map and the sad truth is that nobody really knows what will happen. It all underscores the huge challenges facing governments as they try to judge the appropriate pace of restarting economies, opening schools and relaxing social interactions. In this report, I want to look beyond the fog-shrouded near-term outlook and consider the extent to which there may be a lasting impact on economic trends. Specifically, I will focus on the implications of Covid-19 on long-run economic growth, inflation and monetary/fiscal policy. Will Potential Growth Be Infected? Over the long run, an economy expands at its potential rate which is dictated by the growth in the labor force and productivity. How will the Covid-19 crisis affect these trends in the years ahead? As is well known, declining birth rates have led to sharply slowing labor force growth in all the major economies and this trend will continue for at least the next 20 years (Chart 1). The loss of life due to the virus is tragic but is not large enough to have a major impact on population growth. Moreover, the most seriously affected age cohort – those 70 and above – generally are not in the labor force. But two other trends could affect labor force growth: a shift in participation rates and policies toward immigration. The participation rate measures the percentage of the population aged 16 and over that are employed or actively seeking work. In other words, it is the labor force as a percent of the working-age population, typically broken down into different age cohorts. The US participation rate has plunged as a result of recent unprecedented job losses (Chart 2). While it will spike up as the economy reopens, it is far from clear that it will quickly return to pre-crisis levels. Many job losses will be permanent leading to a rise in the number of discouraged workers who give up on seeking new employment. This would depress future labor force growth relative to its pre-crisis expected trend. Chart 1A Poor Demogrpahic Backdrop For Growth Chart 2The US Labor Participation Rate   For many developed countries, immigration provides an important offset to the slow growth or even decline in domestic populations. For the US, projections from the UN imply that net migration will account for more than half of total population growth in the next decade, rising to almost two-thirds in the 2030s, assuming the net migration rate holds at its past rate of around three people per 1000 of population. Even before Covid-19, there was a growing backlash against high levels of immigration in the US and several European countries and this could now be reinforced. Thus, in a post-virus world, labor force growth could be slightly lower than previously projected in some areas. What about productivity, the more important driver of economic growth? Forced shutdowns have required businesses to adapt their operations to survive when revenues have evaporated. This undoubtedly has led to the discovery of several ways to boost efficiency and that should be a permanent change for the better. Moreover, there is now an added incentive to accelerate the adoption of labor-saving and productivity-enhancing artificial intelligence technologies. On the other hand, some changes will be negative for productivity. Factory closures in China clearly highlighted the downside of supply chains being dependent on a small number of distant providers. Companies in the west had increased sourcing from China and other emerging countries for a good reason: it saved a lot money and was thus good for productivity and profits. After all, productivity is all about delivering goods and services of the same or better quality at a lower unit cost. Chart 3Profit Margins Are Headed Lower It seems inevitable that many companies will seek to establish more reliable supply chains and in some cases that will involve onshoring – i.e. bringing back production to home countries. This will bring advantages, but costs will be higher and profit margins correspondingly lower. Profit margins had already peaked from their unsustainably high level and further sharp declines are in prospect. (Chart 3). Globalization has been a very positive force for productivity and a reversal has the opposite effect. A second problem for future productivity is that the outlook for business investment has taken a turn for the worse. The severe damage to corporate balance sheets means that many companies will be less willing and able to embark on new capital spending initiatives. A reduced pace of capital spending will have a negative impact on future productivity growth. A third issue is that new safety protocols will introduce friction into the economic system, much in the way that the response to 9/11 made air travel a much more tedious business. If businesses must take measures to ensure greater physical distancing for both employees and customers, that implies an increased cost with little obvious benefit to efficiency. Finally, another legacy of the virus will be greater government involvement in the economy, something that is not conducive to increased productivity. And in many countries, there is likely to be a shift of resources into healthcare. That may be highly desirable from the perspective of social welfare but it implies fewer resources for other areas. Overall, the above discussion suggests that potential GDP growth in the developed economies will be negatively impacted by the Covid-19 crisis. It is hard to quantify the impact but even a modest reduction in annual growth can have large cumulative effects over time. Economies can grow above potential rates for a while if they are force-fed with rapid credit growth, but that era has passed. The shock of the economic and financial meltdown of 2007-09 was enough to end the love-affair with debt on the part of consumers in the US and many other countries. This is highlighted by the weakness in US mortgage demand in the past decade, despite record-low mortgage rates (Chart 4). At the end of 2019, mortgage applications were no higher than 20 years previously, despite a record-low unemployment rate and the 30-year mortgage rate falling from 8.5% to 3.5% over the period. While mortgage demand and thus household sector credit growth remained strong in the past decade in economies such as Canada, Australia and some European countries, the current crisis likely means that the Debt Supercycle finally has died in those places as well (Chart 5). Financial caution on the part of consumers and many businesses will push up private sector saving rates in the years ahead. Rising private sector saving rates will make it easier to finance large budget deficits but argue against a return to strong economic growth. Chart 4Weak US Mortgage Demand Despite Record Low Yields Chart 5Household Debt: Peaked or Peaking   Inflation Or Deflation? Chart 6A Deflationary Shock This is a controversial question. Clearly, the short-term picture is deflationary – one merely needs to look at the trend in oil and commodity prices (Chart 6). Large negative shocks to demand are by their nature deflationary. And when economies start to open again, many businesses – especially in discretionary areas such as travel and tourism – will be under pressure to offer large discounts to attract customers. And with double-digit unemployment rates, labor will not be in a strong bargaining position when it comes to wages. The bigger uncertainty relates to the longer-term outlook. On the one hand, a world of moderate rather than strong growth does not lend itself to serious inflationary pressures. On the other hand, there will be supply constraints in some areas that have the opposite effect. For example, a lasting decline in airline capacity could lead to upward pressure on airfares: the era of super-cheap air travel may well be over. And, as noted above, a retreat from globalization reverses one of the big drivers of low inflation during the past couple of decades. Even more importantly, there is the issue of monetary and fiscal policy. The policy response to Covid-19 dwarfs even the radical actions during the 2007-9 financial meltdown. Public sector debt levels have soared in response to stimulus spending and collapsing tax receipts and central banks have flooded the system with liquidity. These policy actions typically raise the alarm about a future inflation threat. Chart 7The US Monetary Transmission Process is Impaired Current central bank actions are not inflationary. Previous rounds of quantitative easing (QE) did not lead to higher inflation because the “printed money” largely ended up in bank reserves, not the broader economy. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, easy money is no longer able to trigger a renewed credit boom, and in that sense, the money-credit transmission process is impaired. This is illustrated in Chart 7 by the collapse in the money multiplier (the ratio of broad to narrow money) and the downward trend in money velocity (the ratio of nominal GDP to broad money). QE was great for asset prices but it did not lead to a vibrant economy and rising inflationary pressures. And the same will be true this time around – at least in the next year or so. Central bank actions are keeping the economic shutdown from translating into a financial system shutdown and this is incredibly important. The inflation risks will come later. The current generation of central bankers have been in office during a period of recurring economic shocks and a persistent undershoot of inflation relative to target. When this goes on for long enough, it is sure to affect the perceived balance of risks. In other words, if the bigger threat is believed to be weak growth rather than inflation, then that will encourage policymakers to err on the side of ease, raising the odds that inflation will at some point surprise on the upside. Chart 8Markets Are Not Priced For Higher Long-Run Inflaton It is easy to see why the authorities may not be overly concerned with a period of higher inflation. It could be justified as an offset to the many years where inflation ran below desired levels. And it would help lower the burden of bloated government debt. And central banks could thwart a revolt by bond vigilantes against inflation by buying up any bonds the private sector was not willing to purchase. A return to a 1970s world of rampant inflation is not in prospect. Back then, policy complacency was accompanied by a formidable combination of strong labor unions, buoyant commodity prices, poor corporate productivity and embedded inflation expectations on the part of both business managers and workers. Those conditions no longer exist and are unlikely to re-emerge to any significant degree. Thus, we are not headed for double-digit inflation. But inflation could well get back into the 4% to 5% range in a few years’ time. And the markets are not priced for this with 5-year CPI swap rates at 0.8%, and 10-year swap rates at 1.3% (Chart 8). Policy At The Extremes We are in the midst of an extraordinary surge in government deficits and debt. The age-old concern that large fiscal deficits lead to higher interest rates and thus crowd out private investment is not applicable in the current environment. Central bank policies of QE and anchoring short rates at zero, along with investor demand for safe assets, are keeping bond yields at historically low levels. And none of that will change any time soon. Nevertheless, fiscal trends do matter. Economies eventually will recover and it will not be appropriate for central banks to keep interest rates at zero indefinitely. As interest rates rise, public sector debt arithmetic will turn uglier. This will leave the authorities with tough choices as the growing cost of debt servicing will eat into the revenues available for other spending programs. And this will occur when deficits will already be under persistent upward pressure from rising pension and health-care costs of an aging population. The direct impact of fiscal policy on economic growth reflects the changes in budget deficits, not their levels. Thus, for policy to remain stimulative, underlying deficits would have to keep rising as a share of GDP. That does not seem likely once economies stabilize and governments scale back current relief programs. For example, the latest IMF projections show general government deficits as a share of GDP for the G7 economies rising from 3.8% in 2019 to 12% in 2020, then falling back to 6.2% in 2021. Those swings partly reflect the cyclical impact of recession and recovery on revenues and spending, rather than discretionary changes in policy. In other words, the move in the cyclically-adjusted deficit would be less extreme. Nonetheless, it highlights that in the absence of continued new stimulus measures, fiscal policy will become more restrictive. Given the prospect of a moderate recovery, fiscal imbalances will not diminish quickly. Meanwhile, there will be pressure for increased spending on health care and transfers to financially-strapped regional/local governments. And there is talk in some countries of the need to create a basic income program for all households. That would be a hugely expensive project, even allowing for offsetting changes to tax systems. On the subject of taxes, it is inevitable that rates will have to increase given budget constraints and the need to fund high levels of spending. The bottom line is that the current environment of fiscal profligacy cannot persist. In the heat of the pandemic and economic shutdown there is no limit on what governments are prepared to do. And the markets are not providing any constraints on policymakers. After things calm down, the harsh reality of unprecedented public debt burdens eventually will prove a huge challenge to the authorities. Advocates of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) are not overly concerned about this because they believe central banks can finance any amount of public deficits with no adverse impact on the economy. But there is a caveat: this is sustainable only for as long as inflation stays under control. If inflation rises, then even MMT argues for fiscal discipline. How will it all play out? There is no chance that developed economies will be able to grow out of their public debt problems and we should rule out explicit default. And there will not be any stomach for the degree of austerity that would be required to bring deficits back to reasonable levels. That leaves monetization as the likely end point. And that implies monetary policy being kept easier than economic conditions warrant, leading eventually to higher inflation. The Short Run Trumps The Long Run, But… This report has speculated about some of the long-run implications of the current environment. Those hardly seem to matter during a crisis and the associated massive uncertainty about what will happen economically, politically, financially and socially over the coming year. Never has Keynes’ dictum “In the long run we are all dead” seemed more apposite. Worries about long-term trends in inflation and/or public debt seem misplaced relative to more immediate concerns. In terms of a well-used analogy, if a building is on fire, the imperative is to put out the flames. The problems caused by water damage can be dealt with later because otherwise, there may not be any building left to repair. Nevertheless, investment decisions should not focus exclusively on the short run – especially when the range of possible outcomes is so vast. The 37 years from end-1982 to end-2019 were an extraordinary period for investors with total returns from global equities compounding at 10.3% a year and long-term bonds not far behind. And this was despite two vicious equity bear markets with the world index dropping by more than 50% between March 2000 and October 2002 and again between October 2007 and March 2009. There is no other comparable 37-year period in history where both bonds and stocks have delivered such strong returns. The key was a very favorable starting point: both equities and bonds were very cheap in late 1982 with the world index trading at around 10 times earnings and 10-year Treasurys offering a real yield of around 7%. We currently have very different valuations. The price-earnings ratio for world equities currently is more than 17 and real bond yields are negative. These are not good starting points for potential long-run returns. With nominal yields below 1%, bond returns will be minimal over the next decade. Stocks should do better given that the dividend yield is above bond yields, but returns will be very modest by historical standards (see Table 1). Table 110-Year Asset Return Projections Concluding Thoughts Much is being written about how Covid-19 will affect the way economies operate in future and how we will all be forced to conduct our lives. Many believe that the virus is a major game changer with some of the changes that have resulted from the crisis becoming a permanent feature. Of course, it is all highly speculative. I am skeptical that there will be lasting major changes in social behavior. People tend to have short memories and, with the critical assumption that vaccines and treatments become available, I expect that we will return to our old habits. People will go back on cruises, pack into bars and restaurants and attend large sporting and cultural events. In other words, life will go on much as before. But the virus will lead to some economic and political effects, both good and bad. On the bad side, the path to economic recovery will be rocky and long-run growth is likely to be negatively affected. And current extreme actions will leave future monetary and fiscal policy massively constrained in dealing with a world of sluggish growth. Meanwhile, inflation could eventually become a problem and the drift toward economic and political nationalism will be reinforced. On a more positive note, businesses are finding new ways to boost efficiency and maybe there will be progress in reducing extreme levels of inequality. We are all in the unfortunate position of being bystanders to an ongoing crisis. There are no compelling historical precedents to light the way forward and every government is struggling to find the right balance between reviving economic activity and preserving lives. In the face of such massive uncertainty, it makes sense to adopt a cautious near-term investment strategy. Hopes that risk assets can be supported solely by hyper-easy monetary policies seem very complacent in my view. The strong bounce in equity prices from their March lows suggests that this is not a bad time to de-risk portfolios.   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Chief Economist mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Jose Maria Barrero, Nick Bloom, and Steven J. Davis, "COVID-19 Is Also a Reallocation Shock," Beker Friedman Institute, May 5, 2020. 2 Alexander W. Bartik, Marianne Bertrand, Zoë B. Cullen, Edward L. Glaeser, Michael Luca, Christopher T. Stanton, "How are Small Businesses Adjusting to Covid-19? Early Evidence From A Survey," NBER Working Paper 26989, April 2020.

Special Report

Highlights China faces unprecedented socioeconomic challenges but its political response is rigid rather than flexible. The twin political goals of centralization and self-sufficiency bode ill for productivity. Communist Party elites have become more ideological and provincial, less cosmopolitan and technocratic. A global protectionist backlash adds to China’s woes. Over the long run, favor cyclical and commodity plays that benefit from China’s reflation but are distanced from its large and persistent political and geopolitical risks. Feature In ancient times Chinese emperors ruled with the “mandate of heaven.” As long as they could keep famine, rebellion, invasion, and plague from ravaging the nation, they were perceived as having divine sanction. Their dynasty would retain power and the people would be kept in awe (Table 1). Table 1Disease And The Fall Of Chinese Dynasties The COVID-19 pandemic and recession are highly unlikely to cause the downfall of General Secretary Xi Jinping and the Communist Party “dynasty.” But it is part of a string of recent challenges to the regime that are secular and structural in nature. The regime’s response, thus far, has been rigidity rather than flexibility – a warning sign that things may get worse before they get better. Investors should not view China as “fundamentally stable,” as has largely been the case for the past 20-30 years. Instead they should view it as fundamentally unstable and therefore a source of understated risk to the Chinese currency, equities, and corporate bonds. This is especially true relative to markets that benefit from Chinese reflation yet are distanced from its political and geopolitical risks. Political risks are more likely to manifest in China’s periphery in the short run. Mainland Chinese political risks are more likely to manifest over the long run. A Massive Reflationary Kick China convenes the National People’s Congress on May 21, after a two-month delay due to the extraordinary COVID-19 pandemic. The annual legislative session typically drives reflationary sentiment in the global economy and financial markets, especially in years of crisis such as 2009 and 2016. This year should be another such year, particularly viewed from a long-term perspective. Investors can count on massive Chinese stimulus because the spike in unemployment poses a threat to social stability. Chinese authorities are wheeling out the big guns for this crisis. The fiscal measures announced thus far should reach 10% of gross domestic product. The “quasi-fiscal” function of Chinese banks could push the total well above that when all is said and done. Investors can count on massive stimulus because the spike in unemployment poses a threat to social stability. The economy is contracting for the first time since the Cultural Revolution (Chart 1). Chart 1China's Rapid Growth, A Pillar Of Stability, Is Officially Gone Table 2The Great Chinese Boom, 1980-2020 Ever since that chaotic period, the Communist Party has based its legitimacy on economic growth and rising incomes. The results of China’s economic boom of 1980-2020 are well known. China’s share of global GDP has risen from 2% to 16%; its share of global capital stock from 3% to 21%; exports 1% to 13%; and military spending 1% to 14% (Table 2). In the future, with this economic pillar cracked, Beijing will have to devote even more attention to “stability maintenance” at home. Reflation Doesn’t Solve Structural Problems Household consumption is China’s only hope for developing sustainable economic growth in the wake of a boom driven by investment in export-manufacturing and construction. Cyclically, the virus threatens consumption by discouraging consumers from going anywhere other than work. However, China’s suppression of the virus is enabling consumers to resume activity gradually. Elsewhere, including Europe, economic expectations are also perking up, corroborating China’s data that consumers are increasingly willing to venture out of their homes (Chart 2). Still, China is vulnerable to subsequent outbreaks and is already instituting new lockdowns in the northeast. Structurally, China’s economy is susceptible to a series of historic shifts that were already taking place and that the pandemic has accelerated. The working-age share of the population is now declining rapidly. This coincides with a drop in the national savings rate (Chart 3) and a rapid rise in the dependency ratio – faster even than in Germany or Japan over the past two decades. Consumption will rise relative to investment. But if households are precautionary savers, as in Japan, then consumption will not grow fast enough to sustain overall GDP growth, forcing the government to spend more to shore up overall demand. Chart 2Chinese And Global Sentiment Recovering Chart 3China's Demographic Changes Portend Higher Cost Of Capital China no longer primarily channels its savings into export manufacturing. Instead it invests them at home. China’s total debt – public and private – has surpassed that of many developed nations despite the country’s lower level of development and wealth (Chart 4). China can manage this debt, given that it prints its own currency, keeps a closed capital account, and has shifted to a primarily domestic-oriented economy. But the debt is less manageable than before the crisis. Nominal growth has fallen beneath interest rates, implying that, in the midst of the crisis, debt cannot be serviced for the economy as a whole (Chart 5). Growth will revive, but it will likely run at lower rates than prior to the crisis. Debt servicing will be a recurrent problem for small or inefficient businesses. Chart 4China’s Indebtedness Will Continue To Surge Chart 5China Needs Growth To Service Debt Chart 6China Struggling To Avoid 'Twin Deficits' The whole problem is illustrated by China’s verging on “twin deficits” – an ever-widening budget deficit combined with a recent tendency to slip into current account deficit (Chart 6). Anglo-Saxon economies often run large twin deficits. But China is more comparable to Japan, which has never let itself run persistent current account deficits, since it would then become reliant on foreign sources of financing. Since China will run large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, it will either have to make its corporate sector more efficient (e.g. by depressing wages), or it will see downward pressure on the currency as a result of a weakening current account balance. The pandemic and recession will pass, thanks to massive stimulus. What will remain is China’s voyage into new territory. Prior to COVID-19 the concern was that China would grow old before it grows rich – that the transition to a low-growth consumer economy would occur at a much lower level of GDP per capita than it did with economies like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Now, with a sudden downward shift in growth rates, it is possible that China will grow old without growing rich. This would be a huge risk to the regime in the long run. The Communist Party Returns To Its Roots Risk of economic stagnation – the so-called middle-income trap – is why policymakers at the National People’s Congress this weekend will lay so much emphasis on “reform and opening up,” even as they are forced by the pandemic to do the opposite for now and stimulate the economy via debt-financed fixed investment. China has pledged sweeping structural reforms, liberalization, and internationalization so many times now that it is common for western policymakers to complain of “promise fatigue.” The lack of verification is one reason foreign governments are increasingly willing to consider punitive measures in dealing with China. Today’s macro and geopolitical context do not favor liberal reforms, such as occurred in China in the late 1990s, but the changing characteristics of China’s elite political leaders reveal a more specific reason why policy has grown more statist, more “communist,” and less liberal, over the past decade. Members of the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC), the most powerful decision-making body, have become more ideological, more authoritarian, less cosmopolitan, and less technocratic over the years (Chart 7). They are far less likely to have studied the hard sciences or engineering than their predecessors, who orchestrated China’s westernizing, capitalist reforms from the 1980s to early 2000s. Chart 7China’s Leadership Increasingly Provincial And Inward-Looking They lack experience running state-owned enterprises, which might seem like a plus, except that the alternative is being a career politician – a ruler of a province – and never having run any business at all. Leaders increasingly hail from rural provinces, as opposed to the wealthy, internationally savvy coasts. Chart 8China Will Miss Some Centennial Income Targets Essentially, the grassroots interior of the country – the base of the Communist Party – has been reclaiming the party from the corrupt, liberal, westernizing technocrats. And the party is about to grow even more reactionary. First, it is now officially failing to meet its own development goals. For several years the administration has talked of abandoning annual GDP growth targets as part of its push to prioritize quality rather than quantity of economic growth, but has not done so. Now it is not only the annual growth target that will be missed in 2020, but the party’s decade goals will have to be fudged (Chart 8). Moreover, if the economy does not recover as quickly as hoped then the highly symbolic 2021 centennial of the Communist Party will be marred. Replacing hard numerical targets is reasonable but will not change the party’s constant need to emphasize development goals to keep the people looking forward. And it will not remove the local-level incentive structures that cause economic distortions to meet central government goals. The takeaway is that massive stimulus is assured as the party cannot afford to suffer instability over this period of political milestones. Second, the administration’s difficulties open up at least some possibility of factional struggle within the party. Remember that Xi Jinping was supposed to step down in 2022 at the twentieth National Party Congress. This would have marked the end of his ten-year rule according to the rules that his two predecessors tried to establish. Xi altered this pattern in 2017 to pave the way to rule until 2035 or beyond. Thus while the market can look forward to stimulus this year and next to ensure the economy has stabilized by 2022 (Chart 9), there is potential for surprising political events to rattle China’s appearance of political stability and unity. Chart 9Xi Jinping Was Originally Slated To Step Down In 2022 Granted, Xi has shifted the party’s governance model from single-party rule to single-person rule. The most likely political shocks will come from Xi cracking down on his opponents to re-consolidate power, as he did in 2012-13 and 2017. Factional struggles could cause minor risk-off episodes in financial markets but they will say something more important, which is that the unity of the ruling party is a façade and stability cannot be assumed forever. Economic Targets: Centralization And Autarky In the coming years, Xi Jinping’s government will continue to centralize control over society and the economy as it has done throughout his term. This is the opposite of “reform” in the sense of former leader Deng Xiaoping, which meant decentralizing power and letting local governments and private business innovate. The Xi administration’s “reform” push was to cut industrial overcapacity and deleverage the corporate sector, as we highlighted in a series of reports from 2016-18. We argued then that these reforms would be abandoned as soon as major downside risks to growth returned – which is what occurred due to the trade war and now COVID-19. Thus the net effect of the Xi administration thus far has been to centralize the economy and pursue self-sufficiency. Centralization can be shown in the resurgence of the Communist Party, the central government in Beijing, and state-owned enterprises. Government debt has grown at the expense of private leverage (Chart 10), which faced a crackdown, while the state-owned share of corporate debt has grown from one-half to two-thirds since 2013. Xi formally pledged in 2017 to make state companies stronger, better, and bigger. His term has witnessed a major bull market in SOE equities relative to the broad market – and each phase of power consolidation adds a new rally to this trend (Chart 11). Chart 10Public Sector Encroaching On Private Sector … Before COVID-19 Chart 11SOE Bull Market Under Xi Jinping As for international trade, China has become far less reliant on foreign parts and components for its manufacturing sector over recent decades (Chart 12). It has also increasingly used state resources to pursue strategic self-sufficiency through technological acquisition, import substitution, and state-backed “indigenous innovation.” The attempt to make a new Great Leap Forward in advanced manufacturing and high-tech services has led to a direct clash with the US government, which is now actively expanding export controls. In the upcoming fourteenth Five Year Plan for the years 2021-25, Beijing is highly likely to double down on technological self-reliance. Chart 12China Closes Its Doors Chart 13Centralization And Closed Economy Harm Productivity Centralization and import substitution have harmed productivity, especially total factor productivity (Chart 13). Centralization is not necessarily bad for productivity – state-directed research and development can galvanize major improvements. But in China centralization is excessive and constricts the flow of information and ideas in civil society and academia, which discourages innovation and privileges quantity over quality of output. Closure to the outside world reinforces this point – particularly as a global protectionist backlash comes to affect China’s acquisition of tech and talent – and exacerbates the misallocation of capital at home. Social Unrest Will Grow China’s falling potential growth will generate social unrest over time, despite the appearance of perfect control in this authoritarian society. Table 3 shows our COVID-19 Social Unrest Index. Countries are ranked from best to worst, top to bottom. Obviously a high rank does not suggest a country is immune to unrest – all emerging markets are vulnerable. A poor score under “household grievances” – i.e., income inequality combined with the “misery index” of high inflation and unemployment – can engender unrest even in relatively well-governed states, as is happening in Chile. Table 3China Looks Stable On Paper: Our COVID-19 Social Unrest Index China ranks fourth overall, with poor governance indicators dragging down the total. However, household grievances will rise as the unemployment rate rises (and perhaps food and fuel inflation). Unemployment is much higher in China than officially reported. The government is also unfamiliar with how to deal with large surges in unemployment, having long utilized policy to minimize the unemployment rate at any cost (Chart 14). Chart 14AUnemployment Spike A Threat To Chinese Stability Chart 14BUnemployment Spike A Threat To Chinese Stability Chart 15Income Inequality In China Inequality is at extreme levels and will worsen as a result of COVID-19. Our China Investment Strategist shows that the bifurcation in wealth between the top 10% and the bottom 50% will widen as job losses hit low-skilled and labor-intensive sectors (Chart 15). The rural-urban disparity – an obsession of policymakers in recent years – will also grow amid the crisis (Chart 16). Two factors are aggravating these trends. First, the decline of the manufacturing sector alluded to above. China’s manufacturing sector was too large and it has been rapidly converging to the level of developed economies, meaning that as many as 10% of workers’ jobs are at risk in the coming years. A maturing economy and mercantilist geopolitical trends are accelerating this process (Chart 17). Beijing will have to confiscate wealth from the coastal provinces and power centers to reduce inequality and social grievances. Chart 16Regional Inequality In China Chart 17Large Manufacturing Sector Getting Purged Second, migrant workers are drifting home amid the COVID-19 crisis, just as in 2008. 51 million migrants vanished from employment rolls in the first quarter (Chart 18). The government’s model of household registration reform has focused not on making it easier for migrants to integrate into wealthy coastal provinces but rather on subsidizing activity in interior provinces and foisting workers back into their home provinces. This is a trigger of unrest. Will social unrest end up being politically significant? In most cases no. Beijing is prepared to quell protests and dissent – it has devoted massive resources to domestic security, even compared to its rapid military modernization (Chart 19). Chart 18Migrant Workers Cast Adrift Amid COVID-19 Chart 19‘Stability Maintenance’ Is A State Priority The Communist Party began prioritizing “social stability maintenance” across all dimensions of society in the wake of the global financial crisis in 2008. The abortive “Jasmine Revolution” in 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring, was literally swept away by street-cleaning trucks. The Wukan riots that same year were more persistent, flaring up again in 2016, but the siege was ultimately confined to a single city in the generally more restive south. Various shows of defiance in Wuhan and Hubei in the wake of COVID-19 have been snuffed out. Social unrest will not always be politically significant. State repression and mismanagement could turn any minor incident of unrest into a major incident. But as long as disturbances remain local, they will have limited political consequences. The risk for China is its pursuit of innovation and technological modernization. Greater connectivity will increase the potential for cross-border coordination. The running assumption is that China is an authoritarian state with sufficient police force to silence any discontent. But political activism does not have to be liberal – it could be nationalist, or simply based on quality of life issues that cannot easily be demonized. At any rate, the dislocation of the manufacturing sector and labor market in the context of a secular growth slowdown is a long-term tailwind for social and political challenges to the state. Political risk will grow, not fall, from here. Diversions From Domestic Unrest Beijing’s attempt to re-centralize power and reassert Communist Party control has sparked resistance in the Chinese periphery. Both Taiwan and Hong Kong have seen protest movements – consisting of middle class workers as well as youth – since 2013. These movements have not spread to the mainland – if anything they are a diversion from the mainland’s own problems. But they have prompted Beijing to crack down on the periphery, further polarizing opinion. While unrest in Hong Kong will heat up as Beijing attempts to impose even more direct control, ultimately Hong Kong has no alternative. Taiwan, on the other hand, is an island that already largely conceives of itself as an autonomous unit. The sense of Taiwanese identity – as opposed to Chinese – has exploded upward in recent years (Chart 20). There is a very high bar for war in the Taiwan Strait. And yet Chinese military hawks and strategists have begun to discuss it more openly. China’s military drills around the island are a measured but intimidating response to the rise of the popular, nominally pro-independence government since 2016. The US is making active but measured moves to shore up the diplomatic and military relationship with Taiwan. Given Washington’s renewed focus on China’s drive to achieve dominance in semiconductors, and America’s desire to secure supply chains that run through Taiwan and the mainland, we remain fully committed to our view that Taiwan is a major underrated geopolitical risk. Given the high bar for outright war on Taiwan, it should be no surprise that disputes over sovereignty and military positioning in the South China Sea should revive (Chart 21). This is a convenient outlet for Chinese nationalism. The sea is of vital strategic importance to all the major East Asian economies – not because of resources but because of supply security. Military actions in the sea have a direct bearing on cross-strait relations as well as Sino-Japanese relations, which are also liable to flare up during periods of economic distress. Chart 20Tensions In Chinese Periphery Set To Increase Chart 21South China Sea: Not Just A Distraction The US is pushing back in the seas as well, increasing the odds of a skirmish or incident. Recent reports that China will seek to establish an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea have been dismissed by Taiwanese authorities, but an ADIZ is just one of many plausible scenarios that could escalate tensions overnight. Will The US Sabotage China? The US election has the potential to exacerbate China’s economic and political insecurities in the near term. The major constraint on US-China economic decoupling is well known: US allies, such as Europe and Japan, can and will continue to trade with China. Thus the US would suffer the most if it insisted on an outright blockade of trade or tech. The implication, however, is that President Trump will change strategy in any second term. There is a substantial risk to European industry that he could attempt a trade war with the EU as well as China. But the major constraint – that the US cannot take on China alone – means that his advisers across all parties and agencies will urge him to change his position. Whether he will listen is anybody’s guess. Meanwhile a Democratic victory will ensure a multilateral strategy is adopted, as was the case from 2008-16. The real political risk comes when Xi Jinping attempts to step down and pass the baton to a successor. In this regard it is essential to recognize that China’s progress up the manufacturing value chain is a threat to US allies independently of the United States (Chart 22). Chart 22China’s Manufacturing Rivals Advanced Nations Judging by China’s fastest growing export categories, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore have nearly as much to lose as the United States if China’s state-backed trade practices are not constrained (Chart 23). These include illegal tech transfer, hacking, and increasingly Russian-style disinformation campaigns. Chart 23US Not Alone In Concern Over China’s Manufacturing Machine Chart 24China's Rise Comes At Expense Of US Allies, Not Necessarily US In terms of overall geopolitical power, China’s rise has occurred at the expense of Japan and the EU as well as the United States, even though Europe is less threatened militarily (Chart 24). The implication is that if the US should make a concerted diplomatic effort to form a united front against China demanding verifiable reform and opening, it will eventually be able to bring its allies over to the cause. Xi Jinping’s Succession Crisis How would China respond to this external pressure, which threatens to pile onto its new domestic woes? China will resist US unilateral pressure tactics, so confrontation with a re-elected Trump could be very destabilizing. A “grand alliance” of the West that leaves open the path to economic cooperation could force China to capitulate and offer real concessions. But we are far from there today. Faced with outright confrontation or multilateral encirclement, China will double down on self-sufficiency. Thus geopolitics reinforces China’s internal political evolution and the macro backdrop outlined above. Centralization, Maoism, protectionism, and confrontation with the United States suggest that China faces serious trouble over the long run, especially when today’s massive stimulus wears off. Chart 25Markets Want Chinese Reforms And A Trade Deal Will the challenges be so great as to deprive Xi Jinping of the mandate of heaven? Not anytime soon. He sits at the helm of a wealthy authoritarian state and has the distinct advantage of having consolidated power, from 2012-17, prior to the onslaught of internal and external pressure. He enjoys popular support, despite the seeds of unrest identified in this report. The real political risk for the Communist Party comes when Xi Jinping attempts to step down and pass the baton to a successor. It was the succession after Chairman Mao Zedong’s death that occasioned the power struggles of the late 1970s. And it was Deng Xiaoping’s various attempts to set up a successor that led to unrest and party divisions in the 1980s, culminating at Tiananmen Square. The implication is that systemic regime instability is a long way off – yet still discernible. Chinese equities trade at a high risk premium. However, it may persist for some time. Political and geopolitical trends are not positive for China’s growth, productivity, private sector, or trade over the long run. Equity returns in USD terms over the course of the just-finished bull market compare very unfavorably to the previous bull market (Chart 25). On a 12-month and beyond investment horizon, we recommend investors seek cyclical and commodity plays that benefit from Chinese reflation yet are removed from its governance and geopolitical risks. These include industrial metals, Southeast Asian assets, and Japanese and European equities.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com