Global

Feature “People have been asking me whether this is the time to buy. My answer is more nuanced: it’s probably a time to buy.” Howard Marks, Oaktree Capital, Monthly Memo March 2020   Markets have moved dramatically since we published our Monthly Portfolio Update on March 2. Global stocks have fallen by 27% since then. The 10-year US Treasury yield fell from 1.2% to 0.4% before rebounding to 0.8%. And there have been some strange market moves: the US dollar fell then rebounded, and the classic safe haven, gold, has fallen by 7%. Investors are struggling with how to think about this environment, and how to position. Chart 1Risk Assets Should Bottom When New Ex-China Cases Peak Table 1US Healthcare Is Top Quality Our view has not greatly changed. We still believe that risk assets will bottom around the time when global COVID-19 cases peak. They showed signs of a rebound when cases in China peaked on February 13. And they started their recent crash when ex-China cases began to accelerate dramatically (Chart 1). It is likely – and well anticipated – that there will be a sharp rises in cases in the US (and probably the UK and Canada too) over the coming two or three weeks. It is wrong to think, though, that the US is particularly badly prepared for this. The US has a high standard of healthcare, with many more intensive-care beds per person than other developed countries (Table 1) – though it is worrying that some 20% of the US population is uninsured. We see two possibilities for how the pandemic will pan out in coming weeks: The US is the last big cluster and new cases peak there in early April. This causes a two-quarter recession. But if COVID-19 turns out to be seasonal (it has not spread much in hot countries such as Singapore, or in the southern hemisphere where it is now summer – Chart 2) and by April and May it peters out. US consumers stop going out for a while (the professional hockey, basketball, and soccer seasons have been put on hold) and so demand falls. Typically, stocks fall by 25-30% in a recession of this type (Table 2) – and so this is already close to being discounted. There are no longer-term impacts, and soon the world economy is getting back close to normal. Chart 2Will Hot Weather End The Pandemic? Table 2Peak-To-Trough Falls In Equities In Bear Markets The pandemic continues for months. Governments are able to slow contagion via social distancing in order to spread out the pressure on their health services over a longer period. But ultimately one-half to two-thirds of the world’s population gets the disease and the death rate among those people is 0.7% (the rate in Korea, which extensively tested for the virus and has a good medical system). This means worldwide deaths of about 20 million, disproportionately concentrated among the over-70-year-olds and those with chronic illnesses (Chart 3). The disease could spread to poor countries, such as India and Africa, where healthcare services would not be able to cope. The global economy would slow significantly, causing a severe recession. There would be second-round effects: for example, a blow-up in the US corporate credit markets, where debt is already high as a percentage of GDP (Chart 4), which could cause banks to drastically tighten lending conditions. This could cause problems with foreign-currency EM borrowers. It could trigger another euro zone crisis, as banks in southern Europe prove unable to cope with rising defaults. In this scenario, the peak-to-trough decline in global equities could be 40-50%. Chart 3COVID-19 Mostly Kills Old And Sick People Chart 4US Corporate Debt Is A Vulnerability   In our last Monthly, we talked about the usefulness of a Bayesian approach in this sort of uncertain environment. We ascribed a “prior” probability of 10-20% for the latter scenario. The probability has now risen, to perhaps 25%. Chart 5Close To Capitulation But the potential upside from Scenario 1) is considerable. Central banks around the world are throwing everything at the problem. Countries from the UK and Italy, to Japan and Australia have rolled out big fiscal packages this week. The key now is what will the US do. How positively would markets react if the US in coming days scripted a coordinated announcement, with the Fed cutting rates to zero, and the White House and Congress agreeing an $800 billion fiscal package. The Fed is likely to do this – indeed the market is pricing in the Fed Funds Rate at zero by the next FOMC meeting on March 18. The dynamics of fiscal stimulus are more complicated – the Democrats don’t want to give President Trump a boost that will help his election prospects, but they don’t want to be seen to be obstructive in a time of emergency either.1 So what should investors do? We have been tempted in recent days to lower our Overweight recommendation on equities, which has evidently proved wrong, to Neutral. But we fear it is too late to do this, particularly with equities having fallen by 15% over the past two days. There is probably still some downside. We would now look for signs of a bottoming-out, most notably the peak in new COVID-19 cases outside China, but also evidence of capitulation by investors (Chart 5). Moreover, we would pay attention to potential upside surprises (in addition to a Fed/White House/Congress joint package, maybe a making-up between Russia and Saudi Arabia on oil production cuts). In the meantime, when markets move as violently as they have, often the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. There are many individual securities, in both debt and equity markets, that look very attractively valued now. For example, we see a lot of attraction in high-dividend-yield stocks, which might appeal to investors who no longer see the point of investing in government bonds, where the upside – even in a severe recession – is likely to be very limited. Table 3 shows a screening of large-cap stocks in developed markets with a dividend yield of more than 10%, taken from BCA Research’s ETS quants screening service. While many of these are in the Energy sector (where the price/book ratio is now below the lows of 2008 and 2015 – Chart 6), quality names among European Financials and Asia Industrials are also prominent. Table 3Stocks With Dividend Yield Above 10% Chart 6Energy Sector Valuation At Record Low For investors who want to remain risk-off, we would not recommend government bonds as a hedge. It is notable that the Swiss 10-year government bond yield has not fallen in the recent melt-down. They are simply at their theoretical lower bound. German Bunds must be close. The Fed has been clear that it will not cut policy rates below zero, which means that the lower limit for US Treasurys is probably around 0% too. Even in the severest recession, therefore, the upside for Treasurys is limited to 9% (Table 4). This means returns are likely to be very asymmetrical since, in a rebound in risk appetite, yields could rise sharply. Table 4Little Upside From Government Bonds We prefer cash as a hedge. This gives investors dry powder for use when they do want to reenter risk assets. We have been recommending gold, and it will probably continue to serve as a safe haven in the event of our most pessimistic scenario happening. But it looks very overbought in the short term (Chart 7) – as demonstrated by the way that it has recently been correcting even on days when equities fall. TIPS offer a better hedge than nominal bonds, given how low inflation expectations have fallen – the 5-year/5-year forwards now point to CPI inflation in 2025-2030 averaging 1.5% (Chart 8). This implies – highly unrealistically – that the Fed will miss its 2% PCE inflation target by 1 percentage point a year over that period. Chart 7Gold Is Overbought Chart 8Inflation Expectations Unrealistically Low Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy, Weekly Report, "GeoRisk Update: Leap Year, Or Steep Year?" available at gps.bcaresearch.com.  

Dear Client, In addition to this week’s report, BCA Research will hold webcasts over the coming days to discuss the economic and financial outlook amid the myriad of uncertainties gripping global markets. I will take part in a roundtable discussion alongside my fellow BCA Strategists Arthur Budaghyan, Mathieu Savary, and Caroline Miller for a live webcast on Friday, March 13 at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00 PM GMT, 1:00 PM CET, 8:00 PM HKT). In addition, I will hold a webcast on Monday, March 16 at 12:00 PM EDT (4:00 PM GMT). Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights A global recession is now a fait accompli. The only question is whether there will be a technical recession lasting a couple of quarters, or a more prolonged downturn that produces a sizeable increase in unemployment rates. We lean towards the former outcome. Unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand will be mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. This will limit the rise in unemployment, at least initially. The pandemic is likely to prompt firms to increase inventory levels for fear of further disruptions to their supply chains. This should provide a short-term boost to output. While it is possible that spending will remain broadly depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis, while ultra-low government bond yields will incentivize increased fiscal outlays. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021, but much of this demand will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. Health care expenditures will also increase. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 represents a positive supply shock for the global economy, albeit one that will have negative consequences for oil-extraction sectors. We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. However, this is a low-conviction view, and we would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. What A Way To Start The Decade So far, the 2020s may not be roaring, but they are certainly not boring. At the outset of the crisis, there were three scenarios for the COVID-19 outbreak: 1) A regional epidemic largely confined to China; 2) a series of global outbreaks, successfully short-circuited by a combination of government intervention and voluntary “personal distancing” measures; 3) A full-blown pandemic that exposes a significant proportion of the planet to the virus. Unfortunately, the first scenario has been ruled out. Policymakers are now trying to achieve the second scenario. Successful containment would “flatten the curve” of new infections, while allowing the sick to receive better treatment than they would otherwise. It would also buy precious time to develop a vaccine and increase the output of face masks, hand sanitizers, and other products that could slow the spread of the disease. Health Versus Growth Ironically, while the second scenario is clearly preferable to a full-blown pandemic from a health perspective, it may be more damaging from the very narrow, technical perspective of GDP accounting. It all depends on how severe the measures to quash each outbreak need to be. If simple hygiene measures and social distancing turn out to be enough, the economic fallout will be minimal. If ongoing mass quarantines and business closures are necessary, the damage will be severe. History suggests that containment efforts can work. During the Spanish flu, US cities such as St. Louis, which took early action to slow the spread of the disease, ended up with far fewer deaths than cities such as Philadelphia which did not (Chart 1). Western Samoa did not impose any travel restrictions and lost a quarter of its population. American Samoa closed its border and suffered no deaths. Chart 1Containment Efforts Can Be Effective: The Case Of The Spanish Flu Recent experience suggests that COVID-19 can be stopped, even after community contagion has set in. The number of new Chinese cases has fallen from 3,892 on February 5 to 31 on March 11. South Korea seems to be getting the virus under control. The number of new cases there has declined from 813 on February 29 to 242 (Chart 2). Japan and Singapore also appear to be succeeding in preventing the virus from spreading rapidly. Chart 2Coronavirus: The Authorities In East Asia Seem To Be In Control Of The Situation What remains unclear is whether other countries can replicate East Asia’s experience. A recent Chinese study estimated that R-naught – the average number of people someone with the virus ends up infecting – fell from 3.86 at the outset of the outbreak to 0.32 following interventions (Chart 3).1 In other words, China was able to lower R-naught to one-third of what was necessary to stabilize the number of new infections. If one wanted to be optimistic, one could argue that other countries could get away with less heavy-handed measures, even if it is at the expense of a somewhat slower decline in the infection rate. Chart 3Severe Containment Measures Have Changed The Course Of The Wuhan Outbreak Unfortunately, given how contagious the virus appears to be, it is unlikely that simple measures such as regularly washing one’s hands, avoiding large gatherings, and wearing a face mask in public when sick will suffice. Trade-offs will have to be made between growth and health. Moreover, if the virus becomes endemic in a few countries that do not have the institutional capacity to contain it, this could create a viral reservoir that produces repeated outbreaks in the wider world. The result could feel like a ghastly game of whack-a-mole. The Fatality Rate The degree to which countries pursue costly containment measures depends on how deadly the virus turns out to be. On the one hand, there is some evidence that the fatality rate from COVID-19 is lower than the 2%-to-3% that has been widely reported once mild or asymptomatic cases, which often go undetected, are taken into account. This may explain why South Korea, which has arguably done a better job of testing suspected patients than any other country, has reported a fatality rate of only 0.7%. Like the seasonal flu, the death rate from COVID-19 appears to be heavily tilted towards the elderly. In Italy, 89% of COVID-19 deaths have occurred among those who are 70 and older. On the ill-fated Diamond Princess cruise liner, not a single person under the age of 70 has died. The fatality rate for passengers on the ship older than 70 is 2.4%. The seasonal flu kills about 1% of those it infects over the age of 70. Based on this simple calculation, COVID-19 is more lethal, but not light-years more lethal, than the typical flu (and possibly less lethal than the flu is for young children). Unfortunately, these optimistic estimates assume that patients with COVID-19 can continue to receive appropriate care. As we saw in Wuhan, where the official death rate stands at 4.5% compared to 0.9% in the rest of China, and as we are now seeing in Italy, once the health care system becomes overwhelmed, death rates can rise sharply. Bottom Line: Containing the virus will be economically costly, but given the potentially large death toll from a full-blown pandemic, most countries will be willing to pay the price. A Global Recession Even before the virus became endemic outside China, we estimated that global growth would fall to zero on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1. As we cautioned back then, the risk to our forecast was tilted to the downside, and that has proven to be the case. We now expect the global economy to shrink not just in the first quarter but in the second quarter as well, as country after country experiences a surge in new infections. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth constitute a technical recession. Despite the drop in new cases in China over the past two weeks, most high-frequency measures of economic activity such as property sales, railway-loaded coal volumes, and traffic congestion have yet to return anywhere close to normal levels (Chart 4). In the US, hotel occupancy rates, movie ticket sales, and attendance at sporting events were all close to normal levels as of last week. However, that is changing quickly. Already, automobile traffic in Seattle, one of the cities most hard-hit by the virus, has fallen sharply (Chart 5). Chart 4China: It Will Take Time For Life To Return To Normal Chart 5US: Staying Home More In Seattle Due To The Virus? Qualitatively Different While a recession in the first half of 2020 is now unavoidable, the nature of this recession is likely to be quite different than in the past. To understand why, it is useful to review what causes most recessions. A typical recession involves a prolonged loss of aggregate demand. Such a loss of demand can result from either financial market overheating or economic overheating. Financial market overheating can occur if a credit-fueled asset bubble bursts, leaving people with less wealth struggling to pay off debt. For example, US residential investment fell from 6.6% of GDP in 2005 to 2.5% of 2010. Thus, even after the credit markets thawed, there was still a large hole in aggregate demand that needed to be filled. A similar, though less severe, loss of demand occurred when the bursting of the dotcom bubble led to severe cutbacks in IT spending. Economic overheating occurs when a lack of spare capacity puts upward pressure on inflation. Wary of accelerating prices, central banks slam on the brakes, raising interest rates into restrictive territory. This often results in a recession. In both types of recessions, there are usually second-round effects that can swamp the initial shock to aggregate demand. As spending falls, firms start to lay off workers. The resulting loss in household income leads to less spending. Even those who retain their jobs are apt to feel less confident, leading to an increase in precautionary savings. For their part, businesses tend to cut production as inventory levels swell. Things only return to normal once enough pent-up demand has accumulated and/or policy has become sufficiently stimulative to revive spending. Framed in this way, one can see that the current downturn differs from past downturns in at least three important respects. First, unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand this time around will be partly mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. While this will not prevent many workers from temporarily losing income, it will limit the increase in unemployment, at least initially. We have already seen this in China, where GDP growth collapsed but companies are complaining about a shortage of migrant labor. Second, rather than falling, inventory levels may actually rise. Since companies will have to deal with pervasive supply shocks of unknown frequency, duration, and magnitude, their natural inclination will be to increase inventory levels for fear that they will not be able to access their supply chains when they need them. If recent reports of hoarding of toilet paper and bottled water are any guide, the same sort of behavior will show up among consumers. Again, in the short term, this additional demand will help to keep unemployment from rising as much as it would otherwise. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the ongoing crisis is the result of an exogenous shock rather than an endogenous slowdown. In fact, a variety of economic indicators such as US payrolls, the Chinese PMI, and German factory orders were all pointing to an acceleration in global growth before the crisis began. This suggests that growth could recover quickly once the panic subsides. While it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long it will take for the panic to end, it may not last as long as many fear. Investors should particularly pay attention to the situation in Italy. If the number of new cases peaks there, it could create a sense that other western countries will be able to get the virus under control. Second-Round Effects? Although it is possible that economies will remain depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis. The private-sector financial balance – the difference between what companies and households earn and spend – is in surplus in most countries, including China (Chart 6). Chart 6The Private Sector Spends Less Than It Earns In Most Economies Chart 7Lower Oil Prices Eventually Lead To Higher Growth Granted, not all sectors are likely to prove equally resilient. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 will also wreak havoc on oil producers. In both cases, however, there will be offsetting benefits. Much of the demand for travel and entertainment will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. And while lower oil prices will hurt producers, they represent a boon for consumers and companies that use petroleum as an input. In general, as Chart 7 illustrates, global growth usually accelerates following declines in oil prices. Fiscal Policy Will Turn More Stimulative Even before the crisis began, we argued that most governments should permanently increase fiscal deficits in order to raise the neutral rate of interest. At the current juncture, with a recession upon us and government bond yields at ultra-low levels, the failure to enact meaningful fiscal stimulus would be economic malpractice of the highest order. In addition to easing measures being rolled out by central bankers, our sense is that we will get a lot of fiscal stimulus, sooner rather than later. During most recessions, there is always a chorus of voices from people whose own jobs are secure about how a downturn is necessary to cleanse the system. This time around, it is obvious that the victims are not to blame. Politicians will not endear themselves to voters by denying the need for fiscal support to households struggling with medical bills and lost time from work and businesses facing bankruptcy. President Trump’s pledge this week to cut payroll taxes and increase transfers to those affected by the virus is just a taste of what’s to come. Investment Conclusions Chart 8Stock-To-Bond Ratio: A Lot Of The Bad News Has Already Been Priced In We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to our own analysis in our report “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.” For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. The total return ratio between stocks and bonds has fallen by a similar magnitude as in the run-up to prior recessions, suggesting that much of the bad news has already been priced in (Chart 8). Nevertheless, significant downside risks remain, which is why we would characterize our equity overweight as a fairly low-conviction view. We would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. As discussed above, containing the virus could lead to significant economic disruptions. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. Safe-haven government bond yields will probably not rise much from current levels, at least in the near term. The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points last week and will cut rates by another 50 basis points next week. Looking further out, however, bonds are massively overvalued and will suffer mightily as life returns to normal.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Chaolong Wang, Li Liu, Xingjie Hao, Huan Guo, Qi Wang, Jiao Huang, Na He, Hongjie Yu, Xihong Lin, Sheng Wei, and Tangchun Wu, “Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,”medrxiv.org, March 6, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Uncertainty & Yields: Global bond yields, driven to all-time lows as investors seek safety amid rioting markets, now discount a multi-year period of very weak global growth and inflation. Bond Portfolio Strategy: Maintain overall neutral portfolio duration exposure with so much bad news already priced into yields. Downgrade overall global spread product exposure to underweight versus governments on a tactical (0-3 months) basis given intense uncertainties on COVID-19 and oil markets. Model Bond Portfolio Changes – Governments: Upgrade countries that are more responsive to changes in the level of overall global bond yields and with room to cut interest rates (the US & Canada) to overweight, while downgrading sovereign debt with a lower “global yield beta” and less policy flexibility (Germany, France, Japan) to underweight. Model Bond Portfolio Changes – Credit: Downgrade US high-yield, euro area corporates and emerging market USD sovereigns & corporates to underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekOn The Verge Of Global ZIRP The title of this report is a quote from a worried BCA client this morning, discussing his daily commute into Manhattan from the New York suburbs. We can think of no better analogy for the mood of investors in the current market panic. After having enjoyed a decade of riding the gravy train of recession-free growth and robust returns on risk assets, all underwritten by accommodative monetary policies, worries about a deflationary bust following the boom have intensified. The global spread of COVID-19, the ebbs and flows of the US presidential election and, now, a stunning collapse in oil prices – markets have simply been unable to process the investment implications of these unpredictable events all at once. At times of such stress, the obvious thing to do is to stand aside and hedge portfolios while awaiting better visibility on the uncertainties. At times of such stress, the obvious thing to do is to stand aside and hedge portfolios while awaiting better visibility on the uncertainties. It is clear that global government bonds have been a preferred hedge, with yields collapsing to record lows worldwide. While most of the market attention has been on the breathtaking fall in US yields that has pushed the entire Treasury curve below 1% as the market has moved to discount a swift move to a 0% fed funds rate. New lows were also hit yesterday in countries that had been lagging the Treasury rally: the 10-year German bund reached -0.85% yesterday, while the 10-year UK Gilt fell to an intraday all-time low of 0.08% with some shorter-maturity Gilt yields actually dipping into negative territory (Chart of the Week). The common driver of yesterday’s yield declines was the 25% plunge in global oil prices after the weekend collapse of the OPEC 2.0 alliance between Russia and Saudi Arabia. The inflation expectations component of global bond yields fell accordingly, continuing the correlation with energy prices seen over the past decade. Yet the real component of global bond yields has also been falling, with markets increasingly pricing in an extended period of weak growth and negative real interest rates – especially in the US. Collapsing US Treasury Yields Discount A Recession, Not A Financial Crisis Chart 2Re-opening Old Wounds While this latest plunge in US equity markets has been both rapid and powerful, the damage only takes us back to levels on the S&P 500 last seen as recently as January 2019 (Chart 2). The turmoil, however, has reopened old wounds in markets that had suffered their own crises over the past decade, with European bank stocks hitting new all-time lows and credit spreads on US high-yield Energy bonds and Italian sovereign debt (versus Germany) sharply blowing out. The backdrop remains treacherous and global equity markets will likely remain under pressure until the number of new COVID-19 cases peaks outside of China (especially in the US). If there is one silver lining amidst the market carnage, it is that there appears to be few signs of 2008-style systemic financial stress. If there is one silver lining amidst the market carnage, it is that there appears to be few signs of 2008-style systemic financial stress. Bank funding indicators like Libor-OIS spreads and bank debt spreads have widened a bit over the past week but remain at very subdued levels (Chart 3). This is in sharp contrast to classic risk aversion indicators like the price of gold and the value of the Japanese yen versus the Australian dollar, which are closing in on the highs seen during the 2008 global financial crisis and 2012 European debt crisis. Chart 3A Growth Downturn, Not A Systemic Crisis We interpret this as investors being far more worried about a deep global recession than another major financial crisis. That is also confirmed in the pricing of US Treasury yields, especially when looking at the real yield. Chart 4Does The UST Market Think R* Is Negative? Chart 5Another Convexity-Fueled Bond Rally The entire TIPS yield curve is now negative for the first time, even with the real fed funds rate below the Fed’s estimate of the “r*” neutral real rate (Chart 4). The combination of low and falling inflation expectations, and plunging real yields, indicates that the Treasury market now believes that the neutral real funds rate is not 0.8%, as suggested by the Fed’s estimate of r*, but is somewhere well below 0%. With the fed funds rate now down to 0.75% after last week’s intermeeting 50bps cut, the Treasury market is not only pricing the Fed quickly returning to the zero lower bound on the funds rate, but staying trapped at zero for a very long time. The Treasury market is not only pricing the Fed quickly returning to the zero lower bound on the funds rate, but staying trapped at zero for a very long time. Yet that may be too literal an interpretation of the incredible collapse of US Treasury yields. The power of negative convexity is also at work, driving intense demand for long-duration bonds that puts additional downward pressure on yields. Large owners of US mortgage backed securities (MBS) like the big commercial banks have seen the duration of their MBS holdings collapse as yields have fallen. The result is that banks are forced to buy huge amounts of Treasuries (or receive US dollar interest rate swaps) to hedge their duration exposure of negative convexity MBS, hyper-charging the fall in Treasury yields – perhaps over $1 trillion worth of buying, by some estimates.1 This is a similar dynamic to what occurred last summer in Europe, when sharply falling bond yields triggered convexity-related demand for duration from large asset-liability managers like pension funds, further fueling the decline in bond yields (Chart 5). Yet even allowing that some of the Treasury yield decline has been driven by a mechanical demand for duration, a 10-year US Treasury yield of 0.56% clearly discounts expectations of a US recession, as well – which appears justified by the recent performance of some critical US economic data. In Charts 6 & 7, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” analysis of some key US financial and indicators and how they behave before and after the start of the past five US recessions. The charts are set up so the vertical line represents the start of the recession, and we line up the data for the current business cycle as if the latest data point represents the start of a recession. Done this way, we can see if the current data is evolving in a similar fashion to past US economic downturns. Chart 6The US Business Cycle Looks Toppy Chart 7COVID-19 Will Likely Trigger A Confidence-Driven US Recession The charts show that the current flat 10-year/3-month US Treasury curve and steady decline in corporate profit growth are both accurately following the path entering past US recessions. Other indicators like the NFIB Small Business confidence survey, the Conference Board’s leading economic indicator and consumer confidence series typically peak between 12-18 months prior to the start of a recession, but appear to be only be peaking now. The same argument goes for initial jobless claims, which are usually rising for several months heading into a recession but remain surprisingly steady of late – a condition that seems unlikely to continue as more companies suffer virus-related hits to their sales and profits and begin to shed labor. Net-net, these reliable cyclical US data suggest that the Treasury market is right to be pricing in elevated recession risk – especially with US cases of COVID-19 starting to increase more rapidly and US financial conditions having tightened sharply in the latest market rout. Bottom Line: Global bond yields, driven to all-time lows as investors seek safety amid rioting markets, now discount a multi-year period of very weak global growth and inflation – most notably in the US. Allocation Changes To Our Model Bond Portfolio The stunning fall in global bond yields has already gone a long way. Yet it is very difficult to forecast a bottom in yields, even with central banks easing monetary policy to try and boost confidence, before there is evidence that the global COVID-19 outbreak is being contained (i.e. a decreasing total number of confirmed cases). By the same token, corporate bonds (and equities) will continue to be under selling pressure until the worst of the viral outbreak has passed. We raised our recommended overall global duration stance to neutral last week – a move that was more tactical in nature as a near-term hedge to our strategic overweight corporate bond allocations in our Model Bond Portfolio amid growing market volatility. Yet with the new stresses coming from the collapse in oil prices and increasing spread of COVID-19 in the US and Europe, we are moving to a much more cautious near-term stance on global credit. Yet with the new stresses coming from the collapse in oil prices and increasing spread of COVID-19 in the US and Europe, we are moving to a much more cautious near-term stance on global credit. This week, we are making the following additional changes to our model bond portfolio to reflect the growing odds of a global recession: Downgrade global corporates to underweight versus global governments Maintain a neutral overall portfolio duration, but favor countries within the government bond allocation that are more highly correlated to changes in to the overall level of global bond yields. Chart 8Favor Higher-Beta Bond Markets With Room To Cut Rates Given how far yields have declined already, we think raising allocations to “high yield beta” countries that can still cut interest rates, at the expense of reduced weightings toward low beta countries that have limited scope to ease policy, offers a better risk/reward profile than simply raising duration exposure across the board. Such a nuanced argument is less applicable to global corporates, where elevated market volatility, poor investor risk appetite and deteriorating global growth momentum all argue for continued near-term underperformance of corporates versus government bonds. Specifically, we are making the following changes to our recommended allocations, presented with a brief rationale for each move: Upgrade US Treasuries and Canadian government bonds to overweight: Both Treasuries and Canadian bonds are higher beta markets, as we define by a regression of monthly yield changes to changes in the yield of the overall Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index (Chart 8). The Fed cut 50bps last week as an emergency measure and has 75bps to go before reaching the zero bound, which the market now expects by mid-year. Additional bond bullish moves after reaching the zero bound, like aggressive forward guidance, restarting quantitative easing and even anchoring Treasury yields in a BoJ-like form of yield curve control, are all possible if the US enters a recession. Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada (BoC) followed the Fed’s cut with a 50bp easing the next day and signaled that additional rate cuts are likely to prevent a plunge in Canadian consumer confidence. The collapsing oil price likely seals the deal for additional rate cuts by the BoC in the next few months. Downgrade Japanese government bonds to maximum underweight: Japanese government bonds (JGBs) are the most defensive low-beta market in model bond portfolio universe, thanks to the Bank of Japan’s Yield Curve Control policy that anchors the 10yr JGB yield around 0%. This makes JGBs the best candidate for a maximum underweight stance when global bond yields are not expected to rise in the near term, as we expect. Downgrade Germany and France to Underweight: The ECB meets this week and will be under pressure to ease policy given recent moves by other major central banks. A -10bps rate cut is expected, which may happen to counteract the recent increase in the euro versus the US dollar, but there is also possibility that ECB will increase and/or extend the size and scope of its current Asset Purchase Program. Given the ECB’s lack of overall monetary policy flexibility, and low level of inflation expectations, we see limited scope for the lower-beta German and French government bonds to outperform their global peers. Remain overweight UK and Australia: While both Australian government bonds and UK Gilts have a “median” yield beta in our model bond portfolio universe, both deserve moderate overweights as there is still the potential for rate cuts in both countries. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cut the Cash Rate by -25bps last week and they are still open to cut further to boost a sluggish economy hurt by wildfires and weak export demand from China. The RBA will stay more dovish for longer until we will see clear signs of a rebound of the Chinese economy from the COVID-19 outbreak. The Bank of England (BoE) will likely cut its policy rate later this month, or even before the next scheduled policy meeting, as COVID-19 is starting to spread through the UK. Downgrade US High-Yield To Underweight: US junk bonds had already taken a hit during the global market selloff in recent weeks, but the collapse in oil prices pummeled the market given the high weighting of US shale producers in the index (Chart 9). With additional weakness in oil prices likely as Russia and Saudi Arabia are now in a full-fledged price war, US high-yield will come under additional spread widening pressure focused on the weaker Caa-rated segment that contains most of the energy names. We recommend a zero weight in the Caa-rated US junk bonds, within an overall underweight allocation to the entire asset class. Downgrade euro area investment grade and high-yield corporates to underweight: COVID-19 is now spreading faster in Germany and France, after leaving Italy in a full-blown national crisis. The export-oriented economies of the euro area were already vulnerable to a global growth slowdown, but now domestic growth weakness raises the odds of a full-blown recession – not a good environment to own corporate bonds, especially with the euro now appreciating. Downgrade emerging market (EM) USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates to underweight: EM debt remains a levered play on global growth, so the increased odds of a global recession are a problem for the asset class – even with sharply lower interest rates and early signs of a softening in the US dollar (Chart 10). Chart 9Downgrade US Junk Bonds To Underweight Chart 10Still Not Much Broad-Based Weakness In The USD We will present the new specific model bond portfolio weightings, along with a discussion of the risk management implications of these changes, in next week’s report. Bottom Line: Maintain overall neutral portfolio duration exposure with so much bad news already priced into yields. Downgrade overall global spread product exposure to underweight versus governments on a tactical (0-3 months) basis given intense uncertainties on COVID-19 and oil markets. Upgrade high-beta countries with room to cut interest rates (the US & Canada) to overweight, while downgrading lower-beta countries with less policy flexibility (Germany, France, Japan) to underweight. Downgrade US high-yield, euro area corporates and emerging market USD sovereigns & corporates to underweight.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.wsj.com/articles/fear-isnt-the-only-driver-of-the-treasury-rally-banks-need-to-hedge-their-mortgages-1158347080 Recommendations Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: It is too soon to call the bottom in bond yields. To help make that call we will be looking for when: daily new COVID-19 infections reach zero, global growth indicators improve, US economic indicators worsen, technical indicators signal a reversal. Fed: Low inflation expectations mean that the Fed is unconstrained when it comes to easing policy. Rate cuts will continue until either the funds rate reaches zero, or financial markets signal that enough stimulus has been delivered. Spread Product: Investors with 12-month investment horizons should neutralize allocations to spread product versus Treasuries, including high-yield where the recent oil supply shock will weigh heavily on returns. Investors should also downgrade exposure to MBS with the goal of re-deploying into corporate credit once the current risk-off episode runs its course. Feature Risk off sentiment prevailed in financial markets again last week, as COVID-19 continues to spread throughout the world. Most recently, the city of Milan has been placed under quarantine and New York state has declared a state of emergency. It is difficult to have much certainty about the virus’ ultimate economic impact, but the prospect of US recession looms larger and larger. In bond markets, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen to 0.54% and the yield curve is pricing-in 91 bps of Fed rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 1). If those expectations are met, it would bring the funds rate down to 0.18%, only slightly above the zero-lower-bound. Chart 1Market Priced For A Return To The Zero-Lower-Bound On the bright side, there is ample evidence that global economic growth was trending up before the virus struck in late January, and we remain confident that a large amount of pent-up demand will be unleashed once its impact fades. However, we have no clarity on how much longer COVID-19 might weigh on growth. For this reason, we recommend a much more defensive US bond portfolio allocation, even for investors with 12-month horizons. Specifically, investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark and reduce spread product allocations to neutral. The market is sending the message that more rate cuts are needed. We will be quick to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation when we think that bond yields are close to bottoming. In the below section titled “How To Call The Bottom In Yields”, we discuss the factors that will help us make that decision. A State Of Monetary Policy Emergency The Fed took quick action last week, delivering an inter-meeting 50 basis point rate cut as the stock market tumbled on Tuesday morning. Alas, the market is sending the message that those 50 bps won’t be enough. Fed funds futures are pricing-in another 82 bps of easing by the end of next week’s FOMC meeting, followed by further cuts in April (Table 1). Table 1Expectations Priced Into The Fed Funds Futures Curve Of course, easier monetary policy is not the solution to what ails the global economy. At his press conference last week, Fed Chair Powell justified the emergency cut by saying that it will help “avoid a tightening of financial conditions which can weigh on activity, and it will help boost household and business confidence.” This is a fair assessment of what monetary policy can hope to accomplish in the current environment. At most, monetary policy can limit the damage in financial markets, which is a worthwhile goal given the strong historical correlation between financial conditions and economic growth (Chart 2). Chart 2Fed Must Do Its Best To Support Financial Conditions What’s more, with inflation expectations at very low levels – as we go to press the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is a mere 1.03% – there is no reason for the Fed to resist easing policy, even if the expected benefits from easing are small. Chart 3Markets Demand More Easing From our perch, the only possible reason for the Fed to refrain from cutting rates quickly all the way back to zero would be to preserve some monetary policy ammunition for when it is needed most. The Fed probably doesn’t see things this way. In conventional economic models it is the level of interest rates that influences economic activity. Therefore, the way to get the most bang for your stimulus buck is to cut rates to zero as quickly as possible. However, if monetary policy is primarily influencing the economy via its impact on financial conditions and investor sentiment, as Chair Powell claimed, then it would be advisable to only deliver rate cuts when financial conditions are tightening rapidly. That is, don’t cut rates if the stock market is rebounding, save your ammo for when equities are in free fall and panic is widespread. We can’t know for certain what the Fed will do between now and the next FOMC meeting. But we can say that, with inflation pressures low, there are no constraints against cutting rates back to the zero bound. The safest takeaway for bond investors is to assume that rate cuts will continue until either (i) the fed funds rate hits zero or (ii) we see signs that the markets and economy are no longer calling for further stimulus. Those signs would be (Chart 3): Yield curve steepening, particularly at the short end. Stocks outperforming bonds. A rising gold price. A falling US dollar. Bottom Line: More rate cuts are coming, and they won’t stop until either the fed funds rate hits zero or financial markets signal that sufficient stimulus has been delivered. We can’t be certain whether that will occur with more or less than the 91 bps of rate cuts that are currently priced for the next 12 months. As such, we recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark. How To Call The Bottom In Yields The US economy is on the cusp of entering a downturn of uncertain duration that will likely be followed by a rapid recovery. Given that outlook, the next big call to make is: When will bond yields put in a bottom? We identify four catalysts that we will monitor to make that call. 1. Virus Panic Abates This is the most important catalyst that could lead us to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation. The pattern of past viral outbreaks is that bond yields tend to fall until the number of daily new cases reaches zero. This is precisely what happened during the 2003 SARS epidemic (Chart 4A). As for COVID-19, the number of daily new cases looked like it was approaching zero a few weeks ago, but then reversed course as the virus moved on from China to the rest of the world (Chart 4B). One ray of hope is that the number of new cases in China is approaching zero. This suggests that it will also be possible for other countries to contain the virus, but right now it is unclear how long that will take. Chart 4AYields Will Bottom When New Cases Reach Zero Chart 4BNew COVID-19 Cases Still ##br##Rising   In sum, we will keep tracking the global daily number of new cases and will shift to a below-benchmark duration recommendation as it approaches zero. 2. Global Economic Data Improve (Especially China) Chart 5Waiting For A Global Growth Rebound China is where the COVID-19 outbreak started and it is also where we are now seeing the impact in the economic data. The Global Manufacturing PMI dropped from 50.4 to 47.2 in February, due in large part to the plunge in China’s index from 51.1 to 40.3 (Chart 5). In order to call the bottom in US bond yields we will need to see evidence that China can come out the other side of the economic downturn. This means seeing an improvement in the Chinese and Global Manufacturing PMIs. We would also like to see improvement in other global growth indicators such as the CRB Raw Industrials index (Chart 5, panel 2) and the relative performance of cyclical versus defensive equity sectors (Chart 5, bottom panel). Aggressive Chinese stimulus (both monetary and fiscal) might help speed this process along. China’s credit impulse is on the rise (Chart 5, panel 2), and our China Investment Strategy service observed that recently announced policy initiatives related to infrastructure, housing and the automobile sector resemble those that led to a V-shaped Chinese economic recovery in 2016.1  We will be inclined to shift back to below-benchmark portfolio duration when the Global Manufacturing PMI, CRB Raw Industrials index and the relative performance of cyclical versus defensive equities move higher. 3. The US Economic Data Worsen Chart 6Waiting For Weaker US Data While the Global and Chinese economic data are currently in the doldrums, we still haven’t seen COVID’s impact on the US economy. The US ISM Manufacturing PMI is in expansionary territory and the Services PMI is at a healthy 57.3 (Chart 6). Meanwhile, US employment growth has averaged +200k during the past 12 months (Chart 6, panel 2) and the US Economic Surprise Index is above 60 (Chart 6, bottom panel)! Until the US economic data take a hit, another downleg in US bond yields is likely. Looking ahead, if the Global and Chinese economic data are improving as the US data are weakening, financial markets will extrapolate from the Chinese experience and start to price-in an eventual US recovery. Therefore, bond yields will probably start to move higher while the US economic data are still weak. For this reason, one catalyst for us to re-initiate below-benchmark portfolio duration will be when the US economic data weaken. 4. Technical Signals Table 2The 3-Month Golden Rule We don’t recommend relying on technical trading rules when forming a 12-month investment view, but technical signals can help add discipline to investment strategies, especially when calling tops and bottoms. One framework with a decent track record is our Golden Rule of Bond Investing applied to a shorter 3-month investment horizon.2 While this 3-month rule doesn’t work as well as when it is applied to a 12-month horizon, we still find that if you correctly predict whether the Fed will deliver a hawkish or dovish surprise relative to market expectations during the next three months, you will make the right duration call 63% of the time (Table 2). The 3-month Golden Rule worked better for dovish surprises than for hawkish surprises in our sample but delivered solid results in both cases. The median 3-month excess Treasury index return versus cash was -1.09% (annualized) when there was a hawkish Fed surprise, compared to +2.56% (annualized) when there was a dovish Fed surprise. For context, the median annualized 3-month excess Treasury index return versus cash during our sample period was +1.79%. Until the US economic data take a hit, another downleg in US bond yields is likely. The overnight index swap curve is currently priced for 94 bps of rate cuts during the next three months, which would essentially take the funds rate back to the zero bound. As of now, we cannot rule out this possibility and are therefore not inclined to look for higher yields during the next 3 months. Momentum, Positioning & Sentiment Other technical signals can also help call tops and bottoms in bond yields. One such signal comes from our Composite Technical Indicator, an indicator that is based on yield changes, investor sentiment surveys and positioning in bond futures markets. Right now, the indicator is sending a strong “overbought” signal with a reading below -1 (Chart 7). Chart 7Technical Treasury Signals In isolation, an overbought signal from our Composite Technical Indicator is not a strong reason to call for higher yields. We found that, historically, a reading below -1 from our indicator precedes a 3-month move higher in the 10-year Treasury yield only 53% of the time (Table 3). Table 3Technical Treasury Indicator Performance (1995 – Present) One reason for the Composite Technical Indicator’s mediocre performance is that, even at low levels, the market can always become more overbought. But we can partially control for this by combining the overbought signal from our indicator with simple momentum measures that might signal a trend reversal. For example, a reading below -1 from our Composite Technical Indicator combined with a 1-week increase in the 10-year yield precedes a higher 10-year yield during the next three months 58% of the time. If we wait for a 2-week increase in the 10-year yield the rule’s success rate rises to 60%, and it rises to 71% if we wait for the 10-year yield to break above its 4-week moving average. At present, our Composite Technical Indicator shows that Treasuries are extremely overbought, but momentum measures are sending no signals about an imminent trend change (Chart 7, bottom 3 panels). Bottom Line: It is too soon to call the bottom in bond yields. To help make that call we will be looking for when: daily new COVID-19 infections reach zero, global growth indicators improve, US economic indicators worsen, technical indicators signal a reversal. Some Quick Notes On TIPS, MBS And Spread Product Allocations Along with raising recommended portfolio duration to benchmark on a 12-month horizon, we also recommend neutralizing exposure to spread product in US bond portfolios. This includes reducing exposure to high-yield corporate bonds. High-yield remains attractively valued but will continue to sell off as long as risk-off market sentiment prevails. The looming oil price war will also weigh heavily on the sector, which is highly exposed to the US shale energy space. Once again using the SARS epidemic as a comparable, we see that – like Treasury yields – junk excess returns bottomed when the number of daily new cases approached zero (Chart 8). We could still be relatively far from this point, so taking risk off the table makes sense.  New all-time lows in Treasury yields will drag mortgage rates lower and lead to a spike in refinancing activity. We also recommend moving MBS allocations to underweight. New all-time lows in Treasury yields will drag mortgage rates lower and lead to a spike in refinancing activity. This spike is not yet fully reflected in MBS spreads, which remain relatively tight (Chart 9) Chart 8Too Soon To Call For Peak Junk Spreads Chart 9Downgrade MBS . Going forward, even after the economic fallout from COVID-19 has passed and it is time to increase exposure to spread product, we will likely continue to recommend an underweight allocation to MBS because better opportunities will be available in investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds where spreads will be much more attractive. On TIPS, last weekend’s oil supply shock – combined with the demand shock from COVID-19 – will conspire to keep long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates well below their “fundamental fair value” for some time yet. But for investors with longer time horizons we see exceptional value in TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. Even before yesterday’s big drop in oil, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was 52 bps cheap relative to the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 10).3 Chart 10TIPS Offer A Ton Of Long-Run Value Investors with 12-month investment horizons should continue to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries, but those with shorter horizons may be advised to stand aside and wait for the daily number of new COVID-19 cases to reach zero before re-initiating the position.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook?”, dated February 26, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2  For more details on our Golden Rule of Bond Investing please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Highlights Oil prices fell 30% when markets opened Monday morning, following a split between OPEC 2.0’s putative leaders – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – over production cuts to balance global oil markets (Chart 1). If KSA and Russia are able to repair the break in what OPEC Secretary General Mohammad Barkindo once called their “Catholic Marriage” the sudden collapse in prices could serve a useful purpose in reminding producers, consumers and investors of the need for full-time management of production and inventories, and restore prices to the $60/bbl neighborhood in 2H20.1 If not, markets could be in for a drawn-out market-share war lasting the better part of this year, with damaging consequences for all involved, with Brent prices remaining closer to $30/bbl (Chart 2). Feature Much as we rely on modeling to guide our expectations, this is purely political at the moment. How Long Will The Oil Price Rout Last? That’s the question that repeatedly is being asked by clients following the breakdown in Vienna last week, and news over the weekend that KSA would engage a market-share war opened by Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak prior to departing Vienna. Novak gave every impression of renewing a market-share war after Russia rejected the plan put forth by OPEC to remove an additional 1.5mm b/d of production from the market, to combat the demand destruction expected in the wake of COVID-19. The only answer we have to the question: No one knows with certainty. Chart 1Oil Sell-Off Accelerates, As Market-Share War Looms Chart 2A Market-Share War Will Keep Oil Prices Depressed Neither of the principal actors responsible for the 30% rout in oil prices on Monday morning when markets opened for trading – KSA and Russia – are providing guidance at present. Prices since recovered slightly and were down ~ 20% Monday afternoon. Much as we rely on modeling to guide our expectations, this is purely political at the moment. There are two large personalities involved – Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Russian President Vladimir Putin – who have staked out opposing positions on the level of production cuts needed to balance markets in the short term, as the COVID-19 outbreak spreads beyond China leaving highly uncertain demand losses in its wake.2 If a meeting of OPEC 2.0’s leadership can be arranged before the end of March, a hope expressed by Iran's Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh in a Bloomberg interview over the weekend,3 the stage could be set for a rapprochement between KSA and Russia allowing them to repair the rupture in the OPEC 2.0 leadership. Should that occur, the rally in prices could be dramatic – maybe not as dramatic as today's price collapse when markets awoke to the opening rounds of a full-on market-share war between OPEC and Russia. But, over the course of the next few weeks, prices for 2H20 Brent and WTI would begin recovering and moving back toward $60/bbl as markets price in lower inventories on the back of a return to production discipline by OPEC 2.0. If we do not see such a meeting next week, markets will be forced to price in a prolonged price-war that could extend into the end of this year, which will not be easy to arrest. If, as seems to be the case, the Russians' goal is to directly attack shale-oil production in the US with a market-share/price war, the effort most likely will fail. True, there will be an increase in bankruptcies among the shale producers and their services companies. This will set up another round of industry consolidation – i.e., more M&A in the US shales – with the large integrated multinational oil companies that now dominate these provinces adding to their holdings. It is worthwhile remembering that US bankruptcy law recycles assets; it does not retire them permanently. In addition, the acquirers of bankrupt firms’ assets get them at a sharp discount, which greatly helps their cost basis. So, shale assets will change hands, stronger balance sheets will take control of these assets, and a leaner, more efficient group of E+Ps will emerge from the wreckage. What’s Being Priced? It is in neither KSA’s nor Russia’s interest to engage in a prolonged market-share war that keeps Brent prices closer to $30/bbl than to $70/bbl. We estimate oil markets now have to price in the return of ~ 2.8mm b/d of OPEC 2.0 production at the end of this month – i.e., a 10% increase of GCC output, led by KSA’s production getting up to 11mm b/d by year-end; ~ 600k b/d of cuts we were assuming would be approved in last week’s Vienna meetings; and ~ 260k b/d from Russia (Chart 3). This could be understated, as KSA claims 12.5mm b/d of capacity (including its spare capacity). Unchecked supply growth would force inventories to build this year (Chart 4).  In fact, absent a return to production-management by OPEC 2.0, oil markets will extrapolate the higher production and low demand into an expectation for steadily rising inventories, that will – once it becomes apparent the supply of storage globally will be exhausted – force prices toward $20/bbl. Weaker-than-expected demand growth would accelerate this process. Chart 3Higher Production Will Overwhelm Demand In Market-Share War Chart 4Market-Share War Could Exhaust Storage Forcing Production Out of The Market It is in neither KSA’s nor Russia’s interest to engage in a prolonged market-share war that keeps Brent prices closer to $30/bbl than to $70/bbl. The apparent unwillingness of Putin and the Russian oligarchs running the country’s oil companies to make relatively small additional production cuts – vis-à-vis what KSA already has delivered – to support prices has not been well explained by Russian producers. The revenue benefits from small production cuts almost surely exceed the additional revenue that would accrue from a 200-300k b/d increase in  output and keeping prices in the $30-$40/bbl range, a level that is below Russian producers' cost of production onshore and offshore, according to the Moscow Times.  KSA's costs are ~ $17/bbl on the other hand.4 Russia’s economy was wobbly going into the Vienna meetings, which makes sorting this out even more complicated. One thing that can be said for certain is that over the past six months Vladimir Putin has entered into another consolidation phase in attempting to quell public unrest, improve the government’s image, and tighten up control over the country, while preparing for another extension of his time as Russia’s supreme leader. A Battle For Primacy? At one level, it would appear the Russians were pushing back against an apparent demand by OPEC (the old cartel led by KSA) to fall in line. Russia’s rejection of the OPEC proposal could be read as an assertion of their position to show they were, at the very least, KSA’s equal in the coalition. A stronger read of the rejection, given the Russian Energy Minister’s comments following the breakdown in Vienna at the end of last week – "... neither we nor any OPEC or non-OPEC country is required to make (oil) output cuts” – would be Russia was attempting to assert itself as the leader of OPEC 2.0. Giving Russia what amounted to a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum on production cuts was a high-stakes gamble on KSA’s part. On KSA’s side, it is likely the Saudis grew irritated with the Russian failure to get on board to address a global oil-demand emergency that was spreading beyond China, when they were discussing extending and deepening production cuts in the lead-up to last week’s meetings. Giving Russia what amounted to a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum on production cuts was a high-stakes gamble on KSA’s part, to say the least. However, as OPEC’s historic kingpin, KSA may have believed its role was to lead the coalition.  Russia’s in a better position now relative to KSA in the short term vis-à-vis foreign reserves ($446 billion), budget surplus (~ $8 billion), and its lower fiscal breakeven price for oil ($50/bbl) vs KSA’s ($84/bbl), as we discussed in our Friday alert (Chart 5). However, with Russian per-capita GDP at ~ half that of KSA’s, it is highly likely – if this market-share war is prolonged – its citizens are going to be hit with the consequences of the oil-price collapse in short order: FX markets are selling ruble heavily today, and, in short order this will feed through into higher consumer prices and inflation. Indeed, we estimate a 1 percentage-point (pp) depreciation in the ruble vs. the USD y/y leads to a 0.14pp increase in Russian inflation (Chart 6). Chart 5Foreign Exchange Reserves Chart 6Russian Ruble Sell-Off Presages Inflation The Saudi riyal is pegged to the USD, and does not move as much as the ruble. However, KSA’s citizens also will be buffeted once again by a collapse in oil prices, as they were during the 2014-16 market-share war when government revenues came under severe stress. Things To Watch The OPEC 2.0 joint market-monitoring committee could meet again next week in Vienna, but that is not a given. If they do meet, the agenda likely will be dominated by trying to find a face-saving way for both sides to resume production management. Arguably, the presumptive target of the Russian strategy – US shale producers – will be severely damaged by this week’s price collapse, and both could argue the short-term tactic of threatening a price war was a success. The Saudis could also go for a quick solution, if their primary objectives are to sort things out with Russia, stabilize the global economy, and keep President Trump in office, rather than to push down prices in an adventurous attempt to escalate Iran’s internal crisis. We believe Russia badly miscalculated, and was too early in making a play for dominance in OPEC 2.0, if that was its intent. If, on the other hand, these large personalities cannot agree, the price collapse begun today will continue until global oil storage – crude and products – is filled, forcing prices through cash costs of all but the most efficient producers in the world. This level is below $20/bbl. These lower prices could redound to the benefit of China, as fiscal and monetary stimulus provided by policymakers there in the wake of COVID-19 to get the economy back on track for 6% p.a. growth gets super-charged by low oil prices. Bottom Line: We believe Russia badly miscalculated, and was too early in making a play for dominance in OPEC 2.0, if that was its intent. Russian GDP has twice the sensitivity to Brent prices that KSA does, which means such a tactic takes a toll on it as well as the shale producers (Chart 7). Capital markets had the US shale producers on the ropes, so it is difficult to argue there was a need to accelerate the process and shock the world. We again note a full-blown market-share war will set up another round of industry consolidation in the US shales, but, over the medium to longer term, the shale assets of bankrupt companies will only be re-cycled to more efficient operators, as we saw following the last market-share war. This will contribute to a stronger shale sector in the US in the medium term. Chart 7Russian GDP More Sensitive to Brent Prices The only other consolation for Russia is a higher likelihood of regime change in the US (more political polarization in the US benefits Russia), and yet the Trump administration has been the most pro-Russian administration in years so this is not at all a clear objective. We will be watching very closely for a meeting of OPEC 2.0’s joint committee next week. If we get it and a face-saving resolution is agreed by KSA and Russia we would expect stronger demand growth in 2H20 to absorb whatever unintended inventory accumulation a still-born price war causes. If not, we will expect a price war into the end of the year, after which the economies of oil producers globally will have been sufficiently battered to naturally force production lower and investment in future production to contract sharply. At that point, oil and oil equities will be an attractive investments for the medium and long term.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Russia and Saudi Arabia Hold 'Catholic Marriage' with Poem and Badges, Form Enormous Oil Cartel published by Newsweek July 3, 2019. 2     We will be updating our demand estimates in Thursday’s publication, after we get fresh historical data from the principal providers (EIA, IEA, OPEC). 3     Please see Iran's Oil Minister Wants OPEC+ Output Cut, Hopes for Russia Meeting Soon published by Bloomberg, March 8 2020. 4     Please see Russian Oil Production Among Most Expensive in World published November 12, 2019 by The Moscow Times.