Oil

Highlights The global economy is in the midst of a painful recession. Monetary and fiscal authorities are responding forcefully to the crisis, but the lengths of the lockouts and quarantines remain a major source of downside risk to the economy. Investors should favor stocks over bonds during the next year. The short-term outlook remains fraught with danger, so avoid aggressive bets. Central banks can tackle the global liquidity crunch, thus spreads will narrow and the dollar will weaken. The long-term impact of COVID-19 will be inflationary. Feature “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”    Franklin Delano Roosevelt  1932 A violent global recession is underway. Last month, we wrote that a deep economic slump would be unavoidable if COVID-19 cases could not be controlled within two to three weeks.1 Since then, the number of new, recorded COVID-19 cases has mounted every day and fear prevails. Consumers are not spending; firms will face a cash crunch and/or bankruptcy, and employment will be slashed. The next few quarters could result in some of the worst GDP prints since the Great Depression. Risk assets have moved to discount this dire scenario. The global stock-to-bond ratio has collapsed by 47% since its peak on January 17th and stands at the 1st decile of it post-1980 distribution. 10-year US bond yields temporarily fell below 0.4%. The dollar has rallied against every currency and even gold traded below $1500 an ounce. Brent crude trades below $30/bbl. In this context, investors must assess if risk asset prices have declined enough to compensate for the economic hazards created by the COVID-19 pandemic. If the massive amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus announced can turn around the economy in the second half of the year, then stocks and risk assets are attractive. Otherwise, they are still not cheap enough and cash remains king. We think it is a good time to begin to parsimoniously deploy capital into risk assets. A Global Recession And An Extraordinary Response The global economy has suffered its worst shock since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), but policymakers are deploying every tool available. In our base case, GDP will contract more quickly for two quarters than it did during the GFC, and then will recover smartly. It is hard to pinpoint exactly how quickly global GDP will contract in the next six months, but key indicators point to a grim outcome. Chart I-1Global Growth Is Plunging Global Growth Is Plunging Global Growth Is Plunging China’s economy was at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic and its trajectory provides a glimpse into what the rest of the world should anticipate. In February, Chinese retail sales contracted by 20.5% annually and industrial production plunged by 13.5%. The German ZEW survey for March paints an equally bleak picture. The growth expectations component for the Eurozone and Germany fell to its lowest level since the GFC. The same indicator, but computed as an average of US, European and Asian subcomponents is also collapsing at an alarming pace (Chart I-1). The European flash PMI for March also points to a deep slowdown, with the services PMI plunging to 28.4, an all-time low. The performance of EM carry trades flashes a somber warning for our Global Industrial Production Nowcast (Chart I-2). Carry trade returns are imploding because global liquidity is incapable of meeting the demand for precautionary money by economic agents. This lack of liquidity is inflicting enormous damage on worldwide growth. Live trackers for US and global economic activity are also melting down. Traffic in some of the US’s largest cities is a fraction of last year's (Chart I-3). Globally, restaurant bookings have dried up and fewer airlines are flying compared to 2008. Initial jobless claims in the US have surged to 3.28 million, rapidly and decisively overtaking the weaknesses seen during the GFC. Chart I-2The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen Chart I-3Live Trackers Are In Free Fall April 2020 April 2020   Despite the dismal situation, some positive developments are emerging. It has been demonstrated that quarantines contain the spread of the virus. On March 18th, Wuhan recorded no new COVID-19 cases. Moreover, 10 days after its January 24th quarantine began, new cases started to fall off quickly (Chart I-4) in the city. If the recent softening in new cases in Italy’s Lombardy region continues, it will illustrate that democratic regimes can also reduce the pace of infection. Chart I-4Quarantines Do Work April 2020 April 2020 Most importantly, policymakers around the world have shown their willingness to do “whatever it takes.” Governments are easing fiscal policy with abandon. Germany’s state bank KfW is setting aside EUR550 billion to support the economy. France will spend EUR45 billion and has earmarked EUR300 billion in small business loan guarantees. Spain announced EUR200 billion to protect domestic activity. The White House just passed a stimulus package of $2 trillion, and Canada follows suit with a CAD82 billion relief bill. (Table I-1). As A. Walter and J. Chwieroth showed, the growing financial wealth of the middle class is forcing governments to always provide large bailouts after financial crises and recessions. Otherwise, their political parties suffer extreme repudiation from power.2 Table I-1Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic April 2020 April 2020 Central bankers have also become extreme reflators. Nearly every central bank in advanced economies has cut interest rates to zero or into negative territory. Most importantly, central banks have become lenders of last resort. The US Federal Reserve has announced it will engage in unlimited asset purchases; it has reopened various facilities to provide liquidity to the market and is using the US Department of the Treasury to lend directly to the private sector. Among its many measures, the European Central Bank is scrapping artificial limits on its bond purchases that were its capital keys and has offered a EUR750 billion bond purchase program. The ECB is also looking to open its OMT program. Other central banks are injecting cash directly into their domestic markets (Table I-2). The list and size of actions will expand until the markets are satiated with enough liquidity. Table I-2The Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit April 2020 April 2020 The impact of these policy measures is threefold. First, the actions are designed to alleviate the global economy’s cash crunch. Secondly, they aim to support growth directly. The private sector needs direct backing to survive the lack of cash inflows that will develop in the coming weeks. If fiscal and monetary authorities can plug that hole, then spending will not have to collapse as deeply nor for as long as would otherwise be the case. Finally, it is imperative that policymakers boost confidence and ease financial conditions to allow “animal spirits” to stabilize. If risk-taking continues to tailspin, then spending will never recover and the demand for cash will only grow, creating the worst liquidity trap since the Great Depression. Policymakers around the world have shown their willingness to do “whatever it takes.” The economy will continue to weaken in the second half of 2020 if quarantines remain in place beyond the summer. Not being epidemiologists, we are not equipped to make this call with any degree of certainty. Much depends on the evolution of the disease and the political decisions taken. We do not yet know if the population will be willing to endure the economic pain of a depression, or if political pressures will rise to force isolation on those over age 60 and those suffering dangerous comorbidities who are at higher risk, and allow everyone else to return to work and school.3 Investment Implications Part 1: Bonds and Stocks Chart I-5The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated While the short-term outlook remains murky for asset markets, investors with a 12-month or longer investment horizon should begin to move capital into equities at the expense of bonds. Beyond the relative technical and valuation backdrops (Chart I-5), the outlook for fiscal and monetary policy favors this allocation decision. US Treasury yields have dropped from 1.9% at the turn of the year to as low as 0.31% on March 9th. According to the bond market, inflation will average less than 1% during the coming 10 years. The OIS curve is pricing in a fed funds rate of only 68 basis points in five years. In response to this extreme pricing, Treasury bonds are exceptionally expensive (Chart I-6). Moreover, using BCA Research’s Golden Rule of Treasury Investing, there is little scope for yields to fall any lower. The Golden Rule states that the return of Treasury bonds is directly linked to the Fed's rate surprises. If over the next year the Fed cuts interest rates more than is currently priced into the OIS curve, then bond yields will fall in the next 12 months (Chart I-7). Given that the fed funds rate is already at its lower limit, the Fed will not be able to deliver such a dovish surprise and yields will have limited downside. Chart I-6Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Chart I-7The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat   The bond market is also vulnerable from a technical perspective. Our Composite Technical Indicator is as overbought today as it was in December 2008 (Chart I-8). Thus, bond prices are vulnerable to good news. Economic activity will be weak for many months, but the recent policy announcements will boost global fiscal deficits by more than $3 trillion in the next 12 to 18 months. Such a large supply of paper is bearish for bonds, especially when they are very expensive. Moreover, global central banks are engaging in large-scale quantitative easing (QE). Globally, monetary authorities have already announced the equivalent of at least $1.9 trillion in asset purchases. The GFC experience showed that QE programs put upward pressure on Treasury yields (Chart I-9). This time will not be different given the combination of QE, supply disruptions caused by quarantines and large fiscal stimulus. Chart I-8A Dire Combination For Bonds A Dire Combination For Bonds A Dire Combination For Bonds Chart I-9QE Pushes Yields Up QE Pushes Yields Up QE Pushes Yields Up     Equities offer the opposite risk/reward ratio to bonds. Technical indicators are consistent with maximum pessimism toward equities and imply that most of the selloff is behind us, at least for the time being. The Complacency-Anxiety Indicator developed by BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy service points to widespread pessimism among investors,4 an intuition confirmed by our Sentiment indicator (Chart I-10). Moreover, our Equity Capitulation Index is as depressed as in March 2009. Investors with a 12-month or longer investment horizon should begin to move capital into equities at the expense of bonds. Despite the magnitude of the shock hitting the global economy, equities will rally if they become cheap enough and monetary conditions are accommodative enough. The BCA Valuation indicator has collapsed to “undervalued” territory and our Monetary Indicator has never been more supportive of equities (both variables are shown on page 2 of Section III). The gap between these two indicators is at its lowest level since Q1 2009 or 1982, two points that marked the end of bear markets (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Equities Have Capitulated Equities Have Capitulated Equities Have Capitulated Chart I-11Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities   Equity multiples also offer some insight into the risk/reward ratio for stocks. The S&P 500 has collapsed by 34% since its February 19th peak and trades at 13 times forward earnings. True, analysts will revise their forecasts, but the market also only trades at 14 times trailing earnings, which cannot be downgraded. Most importantly, investors are extremely gloomy about expected growth when multiples and risk-free rates are so subdued. Risk assets cannot stabilize durably as long as the demand for dollar liquidity is not satiated. Table I-3Evaluating Where The Floor Lies April 2020 April 2020 We can use a simple discounted cash flow model to extract the expected growth rate of long-term earnings embedded in the S&P 500. To do so, we assume that the ERP is 300 basis points, close to the long-term outperformance of stocks versus bonds. At current multiples and 10-year yields, investors are pricing in a long-term growth rate of -2% annually for earnings (Table I-3). In comparison, investors were more pessimistic in 1974, 2008 and 2011 when they anticipated long-term earnings contractions of -2.5% annually. If we assume that the long-term growth of expected earnings will fall to that depth, then we can estimate trailing P/E multiples will be under different risk-free rates. If yields fall to zero, then the P/E would be 17.7 or a price level of 2,692; however, if they rise to 1.5%, then the P/E would decline to 13.9 or a price level of 2,115 (Table I-3). Chart I-12Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated This method suggests that 2200 is the S&P 500’s likely floor. Risk-free rates and the expected growth rate of long-term earnings are correlated series because the anticipated evolution of economic activity drives both real interest rates and earnings (Chart I-12). Thus, it is unlikely that yields will climb if expected earnings growth falls. Instead, if the expected growth rate of long-term earnings drops to -2.5%, then yields should stand between 1% and 0.5%, implying equilibrium trailing P/Es of 15 to 16.3 times, or prices levels of 2,278 to 2,468. P/E will only fall much further if the dollar scramble lasts longer. As investors seek cash and liquidate all assets, the process can push anticipated growth rates lower while pulling bond yields higher (see next section).   Investment Implications Part 2: The Uncontrolled Liquidity Crunch Is Still An Immediate Risk Risk assets cannot stabilize durably as long as the demand for dollar liquidity is not satiated. The large programs announced around the world seem to be calming this liquidity crunch. However, the situation is fluid and the crunch can come back at a moment's notice. Despite the magnitude of the shock hitting the global economy, equities will rally if they become cheap enough and monetary conditions are accommodative enough. Credit spreads blew up as investors priced in the inevitable increase in defaults that accompanies recessions (Chart I-13). Junk spreads moved to as high as 1100 basis points, their highest level since 2009. If we assume that next year, US EBITDA contracts by its average post-war magnitude (a timid assumption), then the interest coverage ratio will deteriorate to readings not seen since the S&L crisis, which will force default rates higher (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Defaults Will Rise Defaults Will Rise Defaults Will Rise Chart I-14Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate     The anticipated contraction in cash flows creates another more pernicious and dangerous consequence: an insatiable demand for dollar liquidity by the private sector. Companies are worried they may not generate the necessary cash flows to service their debt. This is especially worrisome for foreign borrowers who have loans in US dollars. The BIS estimates that foreign currency debt denominated in USDs stands at $12 trillion. Meanwhile, these foreign borrowers are hoarding dollars. The risk aversion of US-based companies is accentuating the dollar crunch. US companies have pulled on their credit lines en masse. US commercial banks must provide this cash to their clients. However, US banks must still meet liquidity requirements imposed by the Basel III rules. As a result, the banks are also hoarding as much cash as possible in the form of excess reserves and curtailed their capital market lending, especially in the repo market. Repos are the lifeblood of capital markets and without repos, market liquidity (the ability to sell and buy securities) quickly deteriorates. This chain of events has caused a sharp widening in Treasury bid-ask spreads, LIBOR-OIS spreads and commercial paper-T-Bill spreads, and has fueled weaknesses in mortgage and municipal bond markets (Chart I-15). The evaporation of the repo market accentuates the foreign liquidity crunch. Without functioning repo markets, dollar funding in offshore markets becomes more onerous, as highlighted by the widening in global cross-currency basis swap spreads (Chart I-16). Borrowers are buying dollars at any cost. This has led to the surge in the dollar from March 9th, which forced the collapse of risky currencies such as the NOK, the BRL or the MXN, but also of safe-haven currencies such as the JPY and the CHF. Chart I-15Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Chart I-16Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage   The strength in the dollar is problematic. As a symptom of the liquidity crunch, it accompanies forced selling of assets by investors seeking to acquire cash. Moreover, the USD is a funding currency, hence a strong dollar also tightens the global cost of capital for all foreign borrowers who have tapped into US capital markets. For US firms, it also accentuates deflationary pressures and the resulting lower price of goods sold increases the risk of bankruptcies. Thus, a strong dollar would feed the weakness in asset prices and further widen credit spreads. Moreover, because the liquidity crunch hurts growth and can concurrently push yields higher, it could pull P/Es below 15 and drive equity prices far below our 2,200 floor. On the positive side, central banks worldwide are keenly aware of the danger created by the liquidity crunch. The Fed has started and restarted a long list of liquidity facilities (Table I-2). Its unlimited QE program also addresses the dollar shortage directly by expanding the supply of money. Crucially, the Fed has re-opened dollar swap lines with other central banks, including emerging markets such as Korea, Singapore, Mexico and Brazil. Even the ECB and the Bank of England are relaxing liquidity ratios for their banks, which at the margin will alleviate the supply of liquidity in their domestic economies. The Fed will likely follow its European counterparts, which could play a large role in alleviating the global dollar shortage. Investors seeking to assess if the supply of liquidity is large enough should pay close attention to gold prices. The global, large-scale fiscal stimulus programs will also address the dollar liquidity crisis. When investors judge there is sufficient fiscal stimulus to put a floor under global economic activity, the markets will take a more sanguine view of the risk of default. If large enough, government spending will support corporate cash flows and, therefore, limit corporate bankruptcies. Consequently, demand for liquidity will also decline and mass asset liquidations will ebb. Chart I-17Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Investors seeking to assess if the supply of liquidity is large enough should look for some key market signals. We pay close attention to gold prices; after March 9th they fell despite the global spike in risk aversion due to gold's extreme sensitivity to global liquidity conditions. Both today and in the fall of 2008, gold prices fell when illiquidity grew. Our gold fair-value model shows that the precious metal is extremely sensitive to inflation expectations and real bond yields (Chart I-17). As illiquidity grows and the dollar appreciates, inflation breakevens collapse and real yields spike. Thus, the recent gold rebound suggests that the Fed and other major central banks have expanded the supply of liquidity sufficiently to meet demand, the price of money will fall (real interest rates) and inflation expectations will rebound. Monitor whether gold can remain well bid. Investment Implications Part 3: FX And Commodity Markets Chart I-18China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China’s stimulus will be a key driver of the FX market in the post-liquidity-crunch world. Historically, because Chinese reflation has lifted the global manufacturing cycle, it possesses a large influence on the dollar’s trend (Chart I-18). We believe that China’s stimulus will be comparable to the one implemented in 2008 and will boost global growth. Moreover, the interest rate advantage of the US has declined and global macro volatility will not remain at current extremes for an extended time. These three factors (Chinese stimulus, lower interest rate differentials and declining volatility) will weigh on the USD in the coming 18 months (Chart I-18, bottom panel). EM currencies and the AUD will benefit most from the dollar depreciation later this year. In the short term, these currencies remain exposed to any flare up in the liquidity crunch and can cheapen further. But, as Chart I-19 highlights, investing in those currencies will likely generate long-term excess returns because they have cheapened significantly. Commodities, too, are becoming attractive at current valuations. Industrial metals such as copper will benefit greatly from China’s stimulus. A rising Chinese credit and fiscal impulse lifts the price of base metals because it pushes up Chinese infrastructure spending as well as residential and capex investment (Chart I-20). Moreover, a lower dollar and accommodative global monetary policy will further boost the appeal of industrial metals. Chart I-19EM FX Is Cheap EM FX Is Cheap EM FX Is Cheap Chart I-20China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China’s stimulus will be a key driver of the FX market in the post-liquidity-crunch world. The oil outlook is particularly unclear as both demand and supply factors are in flux. At $27/bbl, Brent is cheap enough to compensate investors for the decline in demand that will emerge between now and the end of the second quarter. However, the market-share war between Saudi Arabia and Russia layers on the problem of supply risk. Saudi Aramco is set to increase production to 12.3 million barrels by April and Saudi’s GCC allies have announced they are increasing output as well. According to BCA Research’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service, the oil market is already oversupplied by 1.6 million barrels per day, a number that will expand if the KSA and its allies fulfill their production pledges. If this situation persists, oil will lag behind industrial metals when global risk aversion recedes. Nonetheless, our commodity strategists believe that the collapse in oil prices is more painful for Russia than for KSA. We believe there will be a compromise between OPEC and Russia in the coming weeks that will push supply lower.5 Additionally, the Texas Railroad Commission is preparing to impose limitations on Texas oil production, which has not been done since the 1970s. Such a decision would magnify any rebound in oil prices. Thinking Long-Term: The Return Of Stagflation? The COVID-19 outbreak will likely be viewed as an epoch-defining moment. The policy response to the outbreak will be far reaching and the disease will change the way firms manage supply chains for decades to come. There will be a substantial pullback in globalization. COVID-19 has generated an inflationary shock in the medium term. Chart I-21War Spending Is Always Inflationary War Spending Is Always Inflationary War Spending Is Always Inflationary COVID-19 has generated an inflationary shock in the medium term. Governments have suddenly abandoned their preferences for fiscal rectitude. The US deficit will reach a peacetime record of 15% of GDP. These are war-like spending measures. In history, gold standard or not, wars were the main reason for inflationary outbreaks as they involved massive budgetary expansions (Chart I-21). The large monetary easing accompanying the current fiscal expansion will only add to this inflationary impulse. Many of the proposals discussed by governments involve funneling cash directly to households, while central banks buy bonds issued by the same government. This is very close to helicopter money. These policies will increase the velocity of money, which is structurally inflationary (Chart I-22). Naysayers may point to the lack of inflation created by QE programs in the direct aftermath of the GFC. However, at that time, households and commercial banks were much sicker. Today, capital ratios in the US and the Eurozone are 60% and 33% higher than in 2007, respectively (Chart I-23). Thus, banks are much more likely to add to money creation instead of retracting from it as they did in the last cycle. Chart I-22If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation Chart I-23Banks Are Much Healthier Than In 2008 April 2020 April 2020   Chart I-24Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Markets are not ready for higher inflation. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swaps in the US and the euro area stand at only 1.6% and 0.7%, respectively. Household long-term inflation expectations are also at all-time lows (Chart I-24). Therefore, an increase in inflation will have a deep impact on asset prices. The first implication is that gold prices have probably begun a new structural bull market. Inflation will surprise on the upside and keep real interest rates lower. Both these factors are highly bullish for the yellow metal. Additionally, easy fiscal policy and money printing will devalue currencies versus hard assets, which will benefit all precious metals, including gold. EM central banks have recently been diversifying aggressively in gold, which will add another impetuous to its rally. The second implication is that the stock-to-bond ratio has structural upside. Equities are not a perfect inflation hedge, but their profits can rise when selling prices accelerate. However, bonds display rock bottom real yields, inflation protection and term premia. Moreover, their low-running yields are below the dividend yields of equities, which has also boosted bond duration to record levels. Therefore, bonds offer even less protection against higher inflation. Hence, the stock-to-bond ratio will probably follow the historical experience of the 20th century structural bull market and inflect higher (Chart I-25). However, this outperformance will not stem from the superior performance of stocks in real terms; rather, it will emerge from a very poor performance by bonds. Chart I-25The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map Thirdly, the structural relative bear market in EM equities will likely end soon. EM equities will enjoy strong real asset prices and EM assets have much more appealing valuations than DM stocks. This is an imbedded inflation protection. The world is witnessing a fiscal and monetary push that will result in lower productivity growth and profit margins, along with feared inflation. The next decade could increasingly look like the stagflationary 1970s. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 26, 2020 Next Report: April 30, 2020   II. Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the real neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even once economic recovery takes hold unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). This report revisits the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrates why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. We also outline an inferential approach that investors can use to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. The core conclusion for investors is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, investors should avoid dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about yields as they may rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. Over the past several weeks financial markets have moved rapidly to price in a global recession stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. As financial market participants began to turn to policy makers for support, eyes focused first on the Federal Reserve, and then fiscal authorities. Earlier this week, the ECB joined the party and announced aggressive further measures of its own. When responding to the Fed’s return to the lower bound and its other recent monetary policy decisions, many market participants have expressed the view that the Fed is largely impotent to deal with a global pandemic. There are three elements to this view. The first is that interest rate cuts are ill equipped to stimulate domestic demand if quarantine measures or other forms of “social distancing” are in effect. The second element is that the Fed has only been capable of delivering a fraction of the reduction in interest rates compared to what has occurred in response to previous contractions. The third aspect of this view is that because the neutral rate of interest is so much lower now than it was in the past, Fed rate cuts will not be as stimulative as they were before. Chart II-1Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate While we at least partly agree with the first and second elements of this view, we feel strongly that the third is flawed. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013,6 and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. This time series, which is regularly updated by the New York Fed,7 suggests that the real fed funds rate reached neutral territory in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart II-1). With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even beyond the near term unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). In this Special Report we revisit the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrate why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. Our analysis does not reveal a precise alternative estimate of the neutral rate, although we do provide some inferential perspective on how investors may be able to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. However, the core insight emanating from our report, particularly for US fixed income investors, is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once economic activity recovers. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise may be larger than many investors currently expect. Demystifying The LW R-star Estimate The LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest has gained credibility for three reasons. First, as noted above, the evolution of the series fits with the secular stagnation narrative re-popularized by Larry Summers. Second, the series is essentially sponsored by the Federal Reserve even if it is not officially part of the Fed’s forecasting framework, as its two creators are long-time Fed employees (Thomas Laubach is a director of the Fed’s Board of Governors, and John Williams is the current President of the New York Fed). But, in our view, there is a third important reason that global investors have accepted the LW R-star estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the methodology used to generate the estimate is extremely technically complex, and thus is difficult for most investors to penetrate. Much of the technical complexity of the LW estimate is centered around the use of a statistical procedure called a Kalman filter (“KF”). Simply described, the KF is an algorithm that tries to estimate an unobservable variable based on 1) an idea of how the unobservable variable might relate to an observable variable (the “measurement equation”), and 2) an idea of how the unobservable variable might change through time (the “transition equation”). Through a repeated process of simulating the unobserved variable based on a set of assumptions, the KF is able to compare predicted results to actual results on an observation-by-observation basis, and use that information to generate ever more reliable future estimates of the unobserved variable (Chart II-2). Chart II-2A Very Simplified Overview Of The Kalman Filter Algorithm April 2020 April 2020 We acknowledge that a full technical treatment of the Kalman Filter as it relates to the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest is beyond the scope of this report, and we provide a more technical overview in Box II-1. But what emerges from a detailed analysis of the model is that the Kalman Filter jointly estimates R-star, potential GDP growth, potential GDP, and the variable “z”, the determinants of R-star that are not explained by potential GDP growth. As we will highlight in the next section, this joint estimation of these four variables is a crucial aspect of the model, because a valid estimate of R-star necessitates a valid estimate of the remaining variables. BOX II-1 A Technical Overview Of The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Chart Box II-1 shows that there are three sets of formulas involved in the LW estimation: the “law of motion” for the neutral rate of interest, two measurement equations, and three transition equations. The law of motion for the neutral rate is fairly simple: R-star is a function of trend real GDP growth, as well as “other factors” represented by the variable “z”. Laubach & Williams note that z “captures factors such as households’ rate of time preference”. The measurement equations are also fairly straightforward. First, the (unobservable) output gap is a function of lagged values of itself as well as the lagged real Fed funds rate gap (relative to the unobservable neutral rate). Second, inflation is a function of lagged values of itself, past values of the output gap, relative core import prices, and lagged relative imported oil prices (the latter two variables are included to capture potential supply shocks to inflation). Note that this second measurement equation is required for the model to work, as it relates the unobservable output gap to observable inflation. As presented in Chart II-2, the three transition equations are present to simulate how the unobservable variables might move through time. Potential growth and potential output are a random walk, and “z” from the law of motion follows either a random walk or an autoregressive process. Chart Box II-1The Laubach & Williams R-star Model April 2020 April 2020 Debunking The LW R-star Estimate Before criticizing the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest, it is important for us to note that we have the utmost respect for the Federal Reserve and its research methods. We fully acknowledge that the LW R-star estimation is rooted in solid economic theory, and we have identified no technical errors in the setup of the LW model. Nevertheless, valid analytical efforts sometimes lead to problematic real-world results, and there are two key reasons to believe that the Kalman filter in the LW model is almost certainly misspecifying R-star, at least in terms of its estimate over the past two decades. The first reason relates to the sensitivity of the model to the interval of estimation (the period over which R-star is estimated). Chart II-3 presents the range of quarterly estimates of R-star since 2005, along with the difference between the high and low end of the range in the second panel. The chart shows that while previous estimates of R-star have generally been stable for values ranging between the early-1980s and 2006/2007, pre-1980 estimates have varied quite substantially and we have seen material revisions to the estimates over the past decade. Q1 2018 serves as an excellent example: in that quarter R-star was estimated to be 0.14%; today, the Q1 2018 R-star estimate sits at 0.92%. Chart II-3Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates However, Table II-1 and Chart II-4 highlight the real instability of the Kalman filter estimation by demonstrating the effect of varying the starting point of the model (please see Box II-2 for a brief description of how our estimation of R-star using the LW approach differs slightly from the original procedure). Laubach & Williams originally estimated R-star beginning in Q1 1961; Table II-1 shows what happens to today’s estimate of R-star simply by incrementally varying the starting point of the model from Q1 1958 to Q4 1979. Table II-1Alternative Current LW Estimates Of R-star By Model Starting Point April 2020 April 2020 Chart II-4Alternative Starting Points Produce Wildly Different Estimates Of R-star Today April 2020 April 2020 BOX II-2 The Laubach & Williams R-star Model With Simplified Inflation Expectations To proxy inflation expectations in their model, Laubach & Williams use a “forecast of the four-quarter-ahead percentage change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy (“core PCE prices”) generated from a univariate AR(3) of inflation estimated over the prior 40 quarters”. The authors note that a simplified measure of expectations, a 4-quarter moving average of quarterly annualized core inflation, does not materially alter their results. For the sake of parsimony we use this simplified measure in our analysis. We find that the effect shifts the current estimate of R-star only slightly (+10 basis points), and that the historical differences between our version of the 1961 estimation and the official series are indeed minor. The table highlights that the model fails to even generate a result in a majority of the cases (only 39 out of 88 of the model runs were error-free). In addition, Chart II-4 shows that of the successful estimates of R-star using the LW procedure and alternate starting dates of the model, the estimate of R-star today varies from -2% (in one case) to +2%. Excluding the one extremely negative outlier results in an effective estimate range of 0% to 2%, but the key point for investors is that this range is massive and underscores that the original model’s estimate of R-star today is heavily and unduly influenced by the interval of estimation. Investors should also note that of all of the alternative estimates of R-star today shown in Chart II-4, the estimate using the original interval is very much on the low end of the distribution. The second (and most important) reason to believe that the LW estimate is misspecifying R-star is that the output gap estimate generated by the model is almost certainly invalid, at least over the past two decades. Chart II-5presents the LW output gap estimate alongside an average of the CBO, OECD, and IMF estimates of the gap; panel 1 shows the official current LW output gap estimate, whereas panel 2 shows the range of output gap estimates that are generated using the different estimation intervals highlighted in Table II-1 and Chart II-4. Chart II-5The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades Given that the Kalman filter in the LW model jointly determines R-star and the output gap (by way of estimating potential output via estimating potential GDP growth) and that these estimates are dependent on each other, Chart II-5 highlights that in order to believe the LW R-star estimate investors must believe three things: That the US economy was chronically below potential in the late-1990s when the unemployment rate was below 5%, real GDP growth averaged nearly 5%, and the equity market was booming, That output exceeded potential in 2004/2005 by a magnitude not seen since the late-1970s / early-1980s despite an average unemployment rate, That the 2008/2009 US recession was not particularly noteworthy in terms of its deviation from potential output, and that the economy had returned to potential output by 2010/2011 when the unemployment rate was in the range of 8-9%. Chart II-6The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 While we do not believe any of these three statements, the third is especially unlikely. Chart II-6 highlights that the economic expansion from 2009 – 2020 was the weakest on record in the post-war era in terms of average annual real per capita GDP growth. To us, this is a clear symptom of a chronic deficiency in aggregate demand, and that it is essentially unreasonable to argue that the economy was operating at full employment prior to 2014/2015. This means that the Kalman filter is generating incorrect and unreliable estimates of the output gap, which means in turn that the filter’s estimation of R-star is almost assuredly wrong. How Can Investors Tell What The Neutral Rate Is? An Inferential Approach Table II-2 presents the sensitivity of the original Q1 1961 LW estimate of R-star to a series of counterfactual scenarios for inflation, real GDP growth, nominal interest rates, and import and oil prices since mid-2009. While these scenarios do not in any way improve the validity of the LW R-star estimate, they do help clarify the theoretical basis of the model and they help reveal how investors may infer whether the neutral rate of interest is higher or lower than prevailing market rates, and whether it is rising or falling. Table II-2Sensitivity Of Current LW R-star Estimate To Counterfactual Scenarios (2009 - Present) April 2020 April 2020 Chart II-7Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Table II-2 highlights that today’s estimate of R-star using the original LW approach is mostly sensitive to our counterfactual scenarios for growth and interest rates, but not inflation or oil prices. Shifting down import price growth also has a meaningful effect on R-star, but since core import price growth has been particularly weak over the past several years (Chart II-7), it seems unreasonable to suggest that they have been abnormally high and thus “explain” a low R-star estimate today. Table II-2 essentially highlights that the entire question of the neutral rate of interest over the past decade, and the core contradiction that led to the re-emergence of the secular stagnation thesis, can effectively be boiled down to the following simple question: “Why hasn’t US economic growth been stronger this cycle, given that interest rates have been so low?” Based on the (hopefully uncontroversial) view that interest rates influence economic activity and that economic activity influences inflation, we propose the following checklist for investors to ask themselves in order to not only determine the answer to this important question, but to help identify whether R-star in any given country is likely higher or lower than existing policy rates at any given point in time. Are interest rates above or below the prevailing level of economic growth? Are interest rates rising or falling, and how intensely? Are there identifiable non-monetary shocks (positive or negative) that appear to be influencing economic activity? Is private sector credit growth keeping pace with economic growth? Are debt service burdens in the economy high or low? The first question reflects the most basic view of R-star, which is that the real neutral rate of interest should be equal to, or at least closely related to, the potential growth rate of the economy, ceteris paribus. Questions 2 through 5 attempt to determine whether ceteris paribus holds. In terms of how the answers to these questions relate to identifying the neutral rate, consider two economies, “Economy A” and “Economy B” (Chart II-8). Economy A has broadly stable or slightly rising interest rates that are well below prevailing rates of economic growth (questions 1 & 2), no obvious beneficial shocks to domestic demand from fiscal policy or other factors (question 3), and strong private sector credit growth that is perhaps above or strongly above the current pace of GDP growth (question 4). Chart II-8'Economy A', Versus 'Economy B' April 2020 April 2020 Inferentially, it would seem that interest rates in this hypothetical economy are below R-star today. Question 5 is in our list because the more that active private sector leveraging occurs (thus pushing up debt burdens), the more that we would expect R-star in the future to fall. This is because debt payments as a share of income cannot rise forever, and we would expect that the capacity of economy A’s central bank to raise interest rates in the future are negatively related to economy A’s private sector debt service burden today. Now, imagine another economy (“Economy B”) with interest rates well below average rates of economic growth, an interest rate trend that is flat-to-down, no identifiable non-monetary policy shocks that are restricting aggregate demand, persistently sluggish credit growth, and high private sector debt service burdens in the past. If economy B is growing (even sluggishly) and not in the middle of a recession, it would seem that prevailing interest rates are below R-star, but not significantly so. In this scenario it would seem reasonable to conclude that R-star in economy B has fallen non-trivially below its potential growth rate, and that interest rate increases are likely to move monetary policy into restrictive territory earlier than otherwise would be the case. Is The United States “Economy B”? From the perspective of some investors, our description of economy B above perfectly captures the experience of the US over the past decade: an extremely low Fed funds rate, sluggish to weak growth and inflation, all the result of a huge build-up in leverage and debt service burdens during the last economic cycle. We do not doubt that R-star fell in the US for some period of time during the global financial crisis and in the early phase of the economic recovery. But we doubt that it is as low today as the secular stagnation narrative would imply, in large part because it ignores several important aspects concerning questions 2 through 5 noted above. Chart II-9Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies: Over the past 12 years, there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnect between growth and interest rates: 1) a prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014, 2) the euro area sovereign debt crisis, 3) fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 (Chart II-9), 4) the US dollar / oil price shock of 2014, and 5) the recent trade war between the US and China. Several of these shocks have been policy-driven, and in the case of austerity the negative consequences of that policy has led to a lasting change in thinking among fiscal authorities (outside of Japan) that is unlikely to reverse in the near-future. Chart II-10Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Private sector credit growth: Chart II-10 highlights the extent of household deleveraging noted above by showing the growth in total household liabilities over the past decade alongside income growth. Panel 2 shows the leveraging trend of firms, as represented by the nonfinancial corporate sector debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart II-10 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it is now growing again and has largely closed the gap with income growth. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector has clearly leveraged itself over the course of the expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. While it is true that firms have largely leveraged themselves to buy back stock instead of significantly increasing capital expenditures, in our view this reflects the fact that US consumer demand was impaired for several years due to deleveraging. We doubt that firms would have altered their capital structures to this degree if they did not view interest rates as extremely low. Debt service burdens: Chart II-11 highlights that US household debt service burdens were at very elevated levels prior to the financial crisis, suggesting that the neutral rate did fall for some time following the recession. But today, the debt burden facing households is the lowest it has been in the past 40 years due to both rate reductions and deleveraging, arguing against the view that household debt levels will structurally weigh on interest rates in the years to come. Chart II-12 shows that the picture is different for nonfinancial corporations, as the substantial leveraging noted above has indeed raised debt service burdens for firms. However, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio remains 400 basis points below early-2000 levels when excess corporate sector liabilities had a clear impact on the economy, suggesting that the Fed’s capacity to raise interest rates still exists following the onset of economic recovery if corporate sector credit growth does not rise sharply relative to GDP over the coming 6-12 months. Chart II-11The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low Chart II-12Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise   The intensity of recent interest rate changes: Finally, many investors have pointed to sluggish housing activity over the past three years as evidence of a low neutral rate. However, Chart II-13 highlights that the rise in the 30-year US mortgage rate from late-2016 to late-2018 was one of the largest two-year changes in US history, and Chart II-14 shows that the growth in household mortgage credit did not fall below its trend during this period until Q4 2018, when the US stock market fell 20% from its high in response to the economic consequences of the US/China trade war. Chart II-14 also shows that mortgage credit growth responded sharply to a recent reduction in interest rates. All in all, Charts II-13 & II-14 cast doubt on the notion that the level of mortgage rates over the past three years reached restrictive territory. Chart II-13Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Chart II-14A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market   Investment Conclusions In the face of a global pandemic and an attendant global recession this year, the idea of eventual Fed rate hikes and the notion that the US economy will be able to tolerate them likely seems preposterous to many investors. We agree that over the coming 6-12 months US Treasury yields are unlikely to rise; even at current levels of the 10-year Treasury yield, we are reluctant to call a trough. Chart II-15US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade However, Chart II-15highlights that over a long-term time horizon, the bond market is now essentially priced for a repeat of the ten-year path of the Fed funds rate following the global financial crisis. While some investors will view this as a reasonable expectation in the face of what they see as a persistent and unexplainable gap between growth and interest rates over the past decade, we think this gap is explainable and we highly doubt that a pandemic with minimal mortality risk to the working age population and the young will cause the US economy to be afflicted with active consumer deleveraging lasting 4 to 6-years, substantial and wide-ranging fiscal austerity, persistently rising trade tariffs, and sharply lower oil prices. So while we agree that the US economy will be substantially cyclically affected by COVID-19, US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise following the upcoming recession may be larger than many investors currently believe.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we continued to strike a cautious tactical tone. Valuations were not depressed enough to compensate investors for the lack of clarity around the path of COVID-19. In other words, there was not enough of a risk premium imbedded in asset prices if COVID-19 cases were to spread around the world. Now that COVID-19 has spread around the planet, asset valuations have adjusted massively. The BCA Valuation Indicator for the S&P 500 is now in undervalued territory, thanks to both lower prices and interest rates. Meanwhile, the BCA Monetary Indicator has never been more accommodative than it is today. Together, these two indicators suggest that twelve months from now, equities will stand at higher levels than they do today. Tactically, equities have most probably found their floor. Both our Composite Sentiment Indicator and the VIX are consistent with a capitulation. Anecdotal evidences also point to a capitulation by retail investors. Additionally, Our RPI indicator is finally starting to try to turn up. Nonetheless, equities will likely re-test their Monday March 23rd floor as the length of US and global quarantines that are so damaging to growth (but for now, necessary) remain uncertain. The cleanest way to express a positive 12-month outlook on equities is to bet on a rise in the stock-to-bond ratio. 10-year Treasurys are as expensive as they were in late 2008 and early 1986, two periods followed by rapid rises in yields. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicators is 2.5 sigma overbought. The yield curve is steepening anew, which confirms the intuition that yields will experience significant upside over the coming 12 months. On a longer-term basis, inflation expectations are too low to compensate investors for the inflation risk created by a larger monetary and fiscal expansion than the one witnessed in 2008. That being said, EM sovereigns are getting attractive for long-term investors.  Following the surge in the dollar that accompanied the liquidity crunch that surrounded the COVID-19 panic, the dollar is now trading at its most expensive level since 1985. The large liquidity injections by the Fed should cap the dollar for now, but the greenback will need more clarity on the end of global quarantines before it can fall decisively. Nonetheless, it will depreciate significantly once the global economy rebounds due to the powerful reflationary impulse building up around the world. Finally, commodity prices are retesting their 2008 lows. They are not as oversold as they were then, but this is good sign as the advance/decline line of our Continuous Commodity Index continues to trend higher. Thus, if as we expect, the dollar’s surge is ending, commodities are likely to be in the process of finding a floor right now. Once investors become more optimistic about the outlook for global growth, commodities will likely rebound sharply, maybe even more so than stocks. Therefore, it is a good time to begin accumulating metals, energy and equities as well as FX linked to natural resources prices. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "March 2020," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Chwieroth, Jeffrey M., Walter, Andrew, The Wealth Effect: How the Great Expectations of the Middle Class Have Changed the Politics of Banking Crises, 2019. 3  A relaxation of social-distancing measures would likely mean that large-scale gatherings are still prohibited, and life would not return to normal for a long time. 4  Please see US Equity Strategy "The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn," dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy "KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War," dated March 19, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 6  "IMF Fourteenth Annual Research Conference in Honor of Stanley Fischer," Washington DC, November 8, 2013. 7  "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Highlights As the global economy moves toward shut-down, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia will be forced to end their market-share war and focus on shoring up their economies and tending to their populations’ welfare. Governments worldwide are rolling out fiscal- and monetary-policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. They also are imposing seldom-seen freedom-of-movement and -gathering restrictions on their populations to contain the spread of the virus. A surge in bankruptcies among US shale-oil companies is expected as demand and supply shocks push Brent and WTI below producers’ breakeven prices. In our base case, benchmark prices are pushed toward $20/bbl this year, which will keep volatility elevated. Prices recover in 4Q20 and 2021, as the pandemic recedes, and economies respond to fiscal and monetary stimulus. We have reduced our oil-price forecasts in the wake of the deterioration in fundamentals, expecting Brent to average $36/bbl in 2020, and $55/bbl in 2021. WTI will trade ~ $3-$4/bbl lower. COVID-19 is transitory. Therefore price risk is to the upside in 2021, given the global stimulus being deployed. Feature Brent and WTI prices are down 61.4% and 66.6% since the start of the year (Chart of the Week), taking front-month futures to their lowest levels since 2002. Oil markets are in a fundamental disequilibrium – the expected global supply curve is moving further to the right with each passing day, as the KSA and Russia market-share rhetoric escalates. Global demand curves are moving further to the left on an hourly basis, as governments worldwide impose freedom-of-movement restrictions and lock-downs to contain the spread of COVID-19 seen only during times of war and natural devastation.  These effects combine to swell inventories globally, as rising supply fails to be absorbed by demand. The collapse in crude oil prices since the beginning of this year is lifting volatility to levels not seen since the Gulf War of 1990-91. Chart of the WeekBenchmark Crude Prices Collapse Toward Cash Costs Benchmark Crude Prices Collapse Toward Cash Costs Benchmark Crude Prices Collapse Toward Cash Costs Chart 2Oil-Price Volatility Surges To Wartime Levels Oil-Price Volatility Surges To Wartime Levels Oil-Price Volatility Surges To Wartime Levels Prices, as can be expected under such circumstances, are plunging toward cash costs – i.e., the level at which only operating costs are covered – which are below $20/bbl. The collapse in crude oil prices since the beginning of this year is lifting volatility to levels not seen since the Gulf War of 1990-91 launched by the US and its allies following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (Chart 2). As inventories rise, the supply of storage globally falls, and prices are forced below cash costs to drive surplus crude oil production from the market. The rapid evolution from backwardation (prompt prices exceed deferred prices) to steep contango (prompt prices at a discount) in the benchmark crudes is how markets signal the supply of storage is falling (Chart 3). Chart 3Markets' Violent Move From Backwardation To Contango Markets' Violent Move From Backwardation To Contango Markets' Violent Move From Backwardation To Contango Chart 4Storage Constraints Drive Price Volatility KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War This strain on global inventory capacity will keep volatility elevated: As physical constraints on storage intensify, only price can adjust to clear the market, which results in massive price moves as markets respond in real time to supply-demand imbalance (Chart 4). Shales Lead US Output Lower At this point, massive increases in supply are not required to keep benchmark oil prices below $30/bbl. Markets are seeing and anticipating a sharp contraction in demand in the near term, with storage building as consumers “shelter in place” around the world. Production is set to increase in April, in the midst of a global exogenous shock to demand. As these fundamentals are worked into prices volatility will remain high. In our updated forecasts, our base case assumes KSA and its allies, and Russia raise production by 1.3mm b/d in 2Q20 and 3Q20.  KSA's and Russia's output increase to ~ 11mm b/d and 11.7mm b/d, respectively. We expect the reality of low prices and a slowing world economy to force these states back to the negotiating table in 2H20, with production cuts being realized in 4Q20 and 2021 (see below). With less capital made available to shale drillers, production growth in the shales literally is forced to slow. While KSA’s and Russia’s budgets almost surely will bear enormous strain in such an environment, we believe it is the US shales that take the hardest hit over the short run, if KSA and Russia maintain their avowed production intensions. The growth in US shale output – Russia’s presumed target – is expected to slow sharply this year under current circumstances, increasing at a rate of just 650k b/d over 2019’s level. Next year, we expect shale production in the US to fall ~ 1.3mm b/d to 7.7mm b/d. Part of this is driven by the on-going reluctance of capital markets to fund shale drillers and hydrocarbon-based energy companies generally, which can be seen in the blowout in high-yield bond spreads dominated by shale issuers (Chart 5). With less capital made available to shale drillers, production growth in the shales literally is forced to slow. Chart 5Low Price Force US Shale Cutbacks Low Price Force US Shale Cutbacks Low Price Force US Shale Cutbacks With funding limited and domestic oil prices well below breakevens – and cash costs – more shale-oil producers will be pushed into bankruptcy or into sharp slowdowns in drilling activity (Charts 6A and 6B). These constraints will force total US output to contract by 1.3mm b/d next year, based on our modeling. This will take US lower 48 output this year and next to 10.5mm b/d and 9.2mm b/d, respectively (Chart 7). Chart 6ALow Prices Force US Shale Cutbacks KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War Chart 6BLow Price Force US Shale Cutbacks KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War Capital markets will not tolerate unprofitable production. When the dust settles next year, US shale-oil output is expected to take the biggest supply hit globally, based on our current assumptions and modeling results. Worthwhile remembering, however, shale-oil production is highly likely to emerge a leaner more efficient sector, as they did in the OPEC-led market-share war of 2014-16.1 Also worthwhile remembering, for shale operators, is capital markets will not tolerate unprofitable production. So, net, a stronger, more disciplined shale-oil producer cohort emerges from the wreckage of the COVID-19 demand shock coupled with the KSA-Russia market-share war of 2020. Chart 7US Shale Contraction Leads US Output Lower In 2021 US Shale Contraction Leads US Output Lower in 2021 US Shale Contraction Leads US Output Lower in 2021 Demand Uncertainty Is Huge We are modeling a shock that reduces global demand – a highly unusual occurrence – by 150k b/d this year versus 2019 levels (Table 1). Most of this shock occurs in 1H20, where a large EM contraction originating in China set the pace. We expect China’s demand to begin recovering in 2Q20. The demand contraction moves into OECD states in 2Q20, which are expected to follow a similar trajectory in demand shedding seen elsewhere (Chart 8). In 2H20, we expect global demand to begin recovering, and, barring another outbreak of COVID-19 (or another novel coronavirus) next winter, for global demand growth to re-accelerate to ~ 1.7mm b/d in 2021. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War The uncertainty around our demand modeling is large. Expectations from the large data providers are all over the map: The EIA expects demand to grow 360k b/d this year, while the IEA and OPEC expect -90k and 60k b/d. In addition, some banks and forecasters make a case for demand falling by 1mm b/d or more in 2020, a scenario we do not expect. Sorting through the evolution of demand this year – i.e., tracking the recovery from China and EM through to DM – will be difficult, particularly as Western states go into lock-down mode and the global economy remains moribund. This makes our forecasts for supply-demand balances and prices highly tentative, and subject to revision. Chart 8Demand Shock + Market-Share War = Imbalance Demand Shock + Market-Share War = Imbalance Demand Shock + Market-Share War = Imbalance Market-Share War: What Is It Good For? As we argue above, the US shale-oil producers will, for a variety of reasons, be forced by capital and trading markets to retrench, and to cut production sharply. They lost favor with markets prior to the breakdown of OPEC 2.0, and this will not change. At this point, it is unlikely KSA and Russia can alter this evolution by increasing or decreasing production – investors already have shown they have little interest in funding their further growth and development. The KSA-Russia market-share war reinforces investors’ predispositions, and decidedly accelerates this retrenchment by the shale producers. As the global economy moves toward shut-down, KSA and Russia will be forced to turn their attention to shoring up their economies and tending to their populations’ welfare. The strain of a global shut-down will absorb governments’ resources worldwide, and self-inflicted wounds – which, at this point, a market-share war amounts to – will only make domestic conditions worse in KSA, Russia and their respective allies. The income elasticity of supply for these producers is such that small adjustments – positive or negative – on the supply side have profound effects on oil producers’ revenues (Table 2). Both KSA and Russia are aware of this. Russia burns through its $150 billion national wealth fund in ~ three years in a market-share war, while KSA burns through ~ 10% of its foreign reserves, when export prices fall $30/bbl and Russia's exports rise 200k b/d and KSA's rise 2mm b/d.2 In a world where demand destruction is accelerating revenue losses, and storage limitations threaten to collapse oil prices below cash costs, production management – even if that means extending the 1Q20 cuts of 1.7mm b/d for the balance of 2020 – is necessary to avoid larger, longer-term economic damage (Chart 9). Table 2Market-Share War Vs. Revenue KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War Chart 9Global Inventories Could Surge Global Inventories Could Surge Global Inventories Could Surge We believe the leadership in both of these states have sufficient reason to return to the negotiating table to figure out a way to re-start their production-management accord, if only to preserve funds to cover imports while global demand recovers. It may take a month or two of unchecked production to make this point clear, however, so volatility can be expected to remain elevated. These fundamental and political assessments compel us to reduce our oil-price forecasts in the wake of the deterioration in fundamentals, expecting Brent to average ~ $36/bbl in 2020, and $55/bbl in 2021. WTI will trade ~ $3-$4/bbl lower. Price risk is to the upside in 2021, given the global fiscal and monetary stimulus being deployed. Bottom Line: The confluence of a true global demand shock and a market-share war on the supply side has pushed benchmark crude oil prices close to cash costs for many producers. The damage to states highly dependent on oil revenues is just now becoming apparent. We expect KSA and Russia to return to the negotiating table, to hammer out a production-management accord that allows them to control as much of the economic damage to their economies as is possible. Capital markets already are imposing a harsh discipline on US shales – Russia’s presumptive target in the market-share war. The consequences of the COVID-19 vis-a-vis demand destruction are of far greater moment for KSA and Russia than their market-share war. They need to shore up their economies and get in the best possible position to benefit from a global economic rebound, not destroy themselves seeking a Pyrrhic victory that devastates both of them.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Chinese refiner Sinochem International Oil (Singapore) turned down an offer of crude-oil cargoes for May-June deliver from Russian oil company Rosneft PJSC, which is under US sanctions, according to Bloomberg. Sinochem refuses cargoes from Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Kurdistan, which also are under sanction or are commercially aligned with sanctioned entities. Base Metals: Neutral The downward trend in base metal prices remains,  as the spread of the coronavirus intensifies outside of China, and governments worldwide impose freedom-of-movement restrictions on their populations to contain further spread. Persistent US dollar strength – supported by inflows to safe assets amid the elevated global economic uncertainty – pressures EM economies’ base metal demand. As a result, the LME index is down 18% YTD, reaching its 2016 lows. We were stopped out of our long LMEX recommendation on March 17, 2020 for a 12% loss. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold and silver are caught up in a global selloff of assets that have performed well over the past year as safe havens, as market participants raise cash for liquidity reasons or margin calls. We are waiting for an opportunity to go long gold again after being stopped out earlier in the sell-off. Silver will recover with industrial-commodity demand, which we expect to occur in 4Q20, when the COVID-19 threat recedes, and consumers worldwide are responding to the globally fiscal and monetary stimulus being rolled out now. We are staying on the sidelines for now, as volatility is extremely high for metals (Chart 10). Ags/Softs:  Underweight CBOT May Corn futures were down 3% Tuesday, reaching 18-month lows, driving mostly by high USD levels, which make US exports less competitive. Supplies from South America, where a large harvest is ongoing in Argentina and Brazil, are taking market share. Furthermore, according to a report from the University of Illinois, lower gasoline consumption resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic will reduce the amount of corn needed for ethanol production; demand could fall 120mm to 170mm bushels. Soybeans and wheat futures ended the day slightly higher on the back of bargain buying, after falling to multi-month lows on Monday. USD strength remains a headwind on ags, encouraging production ex-US at the margin and contributing to stifling demand for US exports (Chart 11). Chart 10Gold Is Experiencing Extremely High Volatility Gold Is Experiencing Extremely High Volatility Gold Is Experiencing Extremely High Volatility Chart 11USD Strength Remains A Headwind On AGS USD Strength Remains A Headwind On AGS USD Strength Remains A Headwind On AGS   Footnotes 1     Please see How Long Will The Oil-Price Rout Last?, a Special Report we published March 9, 2020, which discussed US bankruptcy law and the re-cycling of assets. 2     Please see Russia's Supply Shock To Oil Markets and Russia Regrets Market-Share War?, which we published March 6 and March 12, 2020, for additional discussion. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War

Highlights Our short EM equity index recommendation has reached our target and we are booking profits on this trade. The halt to economic activity will produce a global recession that will be worse than the one that took place in late 2008. We continue to recommend short positions in a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar. In EM fixed-income markets, the duration of the ongoing selloff has been short, and large losses will trigger more outflows ensuring further carnage. Stay defensive for now. Russia is unlikely to make a deal with Saudi Arabia to restrain oil output for now. Feature The global economy is experiencing a sudden, jarring halt. The only comparison for such a sudden stop is the one that occurred in the fall of 2008, following Lehman’s bankruptcy. In our opinion, the global economic impact of the current sudden stop is shaping up to be worse than the one that occurred in 2008. That said, we are taking profits on our short position in EM equities. This position – recommended on January 30, 2020 – has produced a 30% gain.   EM share prices have reached the long-term support that acted as the ultimate floor during the bear markets in 1997-‘98, 2001-‘02, 2007-‘08 and 2015. Our decision to take profits reflects investment discipline. The MSCI EM stock index in US dollar terms has reached our target. In addition, this decision is consistent with two important indicators that we follow and respect: 1. EM stocks have become meaningfully cheap. Chart I-1 illustrates that our cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for EM equities is about one standard deviation below its fair value – the same level when the EM equity market bottomed in 1998, 2008 and 2015. Chart I-1EM Equities Are Cheap According To The Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio EM Equities Are Cheap According To The Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio EM Equities Are Cheap According To The Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio For this EM CAPE ratio to reach 1.5 standard deviations below its fair value – the level that is consistent with EM’s 2001-02 lows – EM share prices need to drop another 15%. 2. In term of the next technical support, EM share prices have reached the long-term support that acted as the ultimate floor during the bear markets in 1997-‘98, 2001-‘02, 2007-‘08 and 2015 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2EM Share Prices Are At Their Long-Term Support EM Share Prices Are At Their Long-Term Support EM Share Prices Are At Their Long-Term Support While share prices are likely to undershoot, it is risky to bet on a further decline amid current extremely elevated uncertainty and market volatility. The Global Downturn Will Be Worse Than In Late 2008 Odds are that the current global downturn is shaping up to be worse than the one that occurred in late 2008. From a global business cycle perspective, the current sudden halt is beginning from a weaker starting point. Global trade growth was positive back in August-September 2008 – just prior to the Lehman bankruptcy – despite the ongoing US recession (Chart I-3A). In comparison, global trade was shrinking in December 2019, before the COVID-19 outbreak (Chart I-3B). Chart I-3AGlobal Trade Growth Was Positive In September 2008… Global Trade Growth Was Positive In September 2008... Global Trade Growth Was Positive In September 2008... Chart I-3B…But Was Negative In December 2019 ...But Was Negative In December 2019 ...But Was Negative In December 2019   This is because growth in EM and Chinese economies was still very robust in the middle of 2008. Moreover, the economies of EM and China were structurally very healthy and were anchored by solid fundamentals. Still, the blow to confidence emanating from the crash in global financial markets and plunge in US domestic demand in the fall of 2008 produced major shockwaves in EM/Chinese financial markets. Provided the ongoing negative confidence shock and lingering uncertainty persist, odds are that the risk premium will initially overshoot before settling down. Consistently, risk markets will undershoot in the interim. This is in contrast with current cyclical growth conditions and structural economic health, both of which are very poor in EM/China going into this sudden stop.   In China, economic growth in January-February 2020 was much worse than at the trough of the Lehman crisis in the fourth quarter of 2008. Chart I-4 reveals that industrial production, auto sales and retail sales volumes all contracted in January-February 2020 from a year ago. The same variables held up much better in the fourth quarter of 2008 (Chart I-4). Business activity in China is recovering in March, but from very low levels. Reports and evidence from the ground suggest that many companies are operating well below their ordinary capacity – the level of economic activity remains well below March 2019 levels. US real GDP, consumer spending and capital expenditure shrunk by 4%, 2.5% and 17% at the trough of 2008 recession (Chart I-5). Odds are that these variables will plunge by an even greater magnitude in the coming months as the US reinforces lockdowns and public health safety measures. Chart I-4China Business Cycle Was Much Stronger In Q4 2008 Than Now China Business Cycle Was Much Stronger In Q4 2008 Than Now China Business Cycle Was Much Stronger In Q4 2008 Than Now Chart I-5US Growth At Trough Of 2008 Recession US Growth At Trough Of 2008 Recession US Growth At Trough Of 2008 Recession   Chart I-6US Small Caps: Overlay Of 2008 And 2020 US Small Caps: Overlay Of 2008 And 2020 US Small Caps: Overlay Of 2008 And 2020 About 50% of consumer spending in the US is attributed to people over 55 years of age. Provided COVID-19’s fatality rate is high among the elderly, odds are this cohort will not risk going out and spending. How bad will domestic demand in the US be? It is impossible to forecast with any certainty, but our sense is that it will plunge by more than it did in the late 2008-early-2009 period, i.e., by more than 4% (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Interestingly, the crash in US small-cap stocks resembles the one that occurred in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy (Chart I-6). If US small-cap stocks follow their Q4 2008 - Q1 2009 trajectory, potential declines from current levels will be in the 10%-18% range. Bottom Line: The current halt in economic activity and impending global recession will be worse than the one that took place in late 2008. Reasons Not To Jump Into The Water…Yet Even though EM equities have become cheap and oversold and we are booking profits on our short position in EM stocks, conditions for a sustainable rally do not exist yet: So long as EM corporate US dollar bond yields are rising, EM share prices will remain under selling pressure (Chart I-7). Corporate bond yields are shown inverted in this chart. Chart I-7EM Stocks Fall When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise EM Stocks Fall When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise EM Stocks Fall When EM Corporate Bond Yields Rise Chart I-8Chinese And Emerging Asian Corporate Bond Yields Are Spiking Chinese And Emerging Asian Corporate Bond Yields Are Spiking Chinese And Emerging Asian Corporate Bond Yields Are Spiking The selloff in both global and EM credit markets began only a few weeks ago from very overbought levels. Many investors have probably not yet trimmed their positions. Hence, EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads and yields will likely rise further as liquidation in the global and EM credit markets persists. Consistently, bond yields for Chinese offshore corporates as well as emerging Asian high-yield and investment-grade corporates are rising (Chart I-8). EM local currency bond yields have also spiked recently as rapidly depreciating EM currencies have triggered an exodus of foreign investors. Rising local currency bond yields are not conducive for EM share prices (Chart I-9). Chart I-9EM Equities Drop When EM Local Bond Yields Rise EM Equities Drop When EM Local Bond Yields Rise EM Equities Drop When EM Local Bond Yields Rise EM ex-China currencies correlate with commodities prices (Chart I-10). Both industrial commodities and oil prices have broken down and have further downside. The path of least resistance for oil prices is down, given anemic global demand and our expectation that Russia and Saudi Arabia will not reach any oil production cutting agreement for several months (please refer to our discussion on this topic below). Finally, our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio1 is in free fall and will likely reach its 2015 lows before troughing (Chart I-11). This ratio tightly correlates with EM share prices, and the latter remains vulnerable to further downside as long as this ratio is falling. Chart I-10EM Currencies Move In Tandem With Commodities Prices EM Currencies Move In Tandem With Commodities Prices EM Currencies Move In Tandem With Commodities Prices Chart I-11More Downside In Risk-On/ Safe-Haven Currency Ratio More Downside In Risk-On/ Safe-Haven Currency Ratio More Downside In Risk-On/ Safe-Haven Currency Ratio   Bottom Line: Although we are taking profits on the short EM equity position, we continue to recommend short positions in a basket of EM currencies – BRL, CLP, ZAR, IDR, PHP and KRW – versus the US dollar. Liquidation in EM fixed-income markets has been sharp, but the duration has been short –only a few weeks. Large losses will trigger more outflows from EM fixed-income markets. Stay defensive for now. What We Do Know And What We Cannot Know Amid such extreme uncertainty, it is critical for investors to distinguish between what we know and what we cannot know. What we cannot know: With regards to COVID-19: The speed of its spread, the ultimate number of victims it claims and – finally – its impact on consumer and business confidence and psyche. Related to lockdowns: Their duration in key economies. These questions will largely determine this year’s economic growth trajectory: Will it be V-, U-, W-, or L-shaped? Unfortunately, no one knows the answers to the above questions to have any certainty in projecting this year’s global growth. The key factor that gives Russia an advantage over Saudi Arabia in terms of its ability to deal with a negative terms-of-trade shock is not only its better fiscal position but also its ability to depreciate its currency. What we do know: Authorities in all countries will stimulate aggressively so long as financial markets are rioting. Nonetheless, these stimulus measures will not boost growth immediately. With entire countries locked down and plunging consumer and business confidence, stimulus will not have much impact on growth in the near term. In brief, all policy stimulus will boost growth only when worries about the pandemic subside and the economy begins to function again. Both are not imminent. Hence, we are looking at an air pocket with respect to near-term global economic growth. As we argued in our March 11 report titled, Unraveling Of The Policy Put, the pre-coronavirus financial market paradigm – where stocks and credit markets were priced to perfection because of the notion that policymakers would not allow asset prices to drop – has unravelled.   In recent weeks, policymakers around the world have announced plans to deploy massive amounts of stimulus, yet the reaction of financial markets has been underwhelming. The reason is two-fold: Both demand shrinkage and production shutdowns have just started, and they will run their due course regardless of announced policy stimulus measures. Equity and credit markets were priced for perfection before this selloff, and investors are in the process of recalibrating risk premiums. Provided the ongoing negative confidence shock and lingering uncertainty persist, odds are that the risk premium will initially overshoot before settling down. Consistently, risk markets will undershoot in the interim. Bottom Line: DM’s domestic demand downturn is still in its initial phase, and there is little foresight in terms of the pandemic’s evolution. These are natural forces, and any stimulus policymakers enact are unlikely to preclude them from occurring. Reflecting the economic contraction and heightened uncertainty, the selloff in risk assets will likely continue for now. Do Not Bet On An Early Resuscitation Of OPEC 2.0 As we argued in our March 11 report, Russia is unlikely to make a deal with Saudi Arabia to restrain oil output in the immediate term. Russia may agree to restart negotiations, but it will not agree to reverse its position for some time. Both nations will be increasing crude output (Chart I-12). As a result, a full-fledged oil market share war is underway. Consistently, crude prices have experienced a structural breakdown (Chart I-13).  Chart I-12The Largest Oil Producers Are Ramping Up Output The Largest Oil Producers Are Ramping Up Output The Largest Oil Producers Are Ramping Up Output Chart I-13Structural Breakdown In Oil Prices Structural Breakdown In Oil Prices Structural Breakdown In Oil Prices   The key factor that gives Russia an advantage over Saudi Arabia in terms of its ability to deal with a negative terms-of-trade shock is not only its better fiscal position but also its ability to depreciate its currency. Russia has a flexible exchange rate, which will allow the currency to depreciate in order to soften the blow from lower oil prices on the real economy and fiscal accounts. The Russian economy and financial system have learned to operate with recurring major currency depreciations. Saudi Arabia has been running a fixed exchange rate regime since 1986 and cannot use currency depreciation to mitigate the negative terms-of-trade shock on its end. Even though Russia’s fiscal budget break-even oil price is much lower than that of Saudi Arabia’s, it is not the most important variable to consider in this confrontation. The fiscal situation in both Russia and Saudi Arabia will not be a major problem for now. Both governments can issue local currency and US dollar bonds, and there will be sufficient demand for these bonds from foreign and local investors. This is especially true with DM interest rates sitting at the zero-negative territory. Falling oil prices and downward pressure on exchange rates will trigger capital outflows in both countries. Russia has learned to live with persistent capital flight. In the meantime, capital outflows will stress Saudi Arabia’s financial system and, eventually, its real economy. This is in fact the country’s key vulnerability. We will be publishing a Special Report on Saudi Arabia in the coming weeks.  Bottom Line: Do not expect a quick recovery in oil prices. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Average of CAD, AUD, NZD, BRL, RUB, CLP, MXN & ZAR total return indices relative to average of CHF & JPY total returns.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights While not exactly conciliatory, Russian officials are signaling they will re-consider the declaration of a market-share war with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). KSA upped its shock-and-awe rhetoric promising to lift maximum sustainable capacity to 13mm b/d, which has kept prices under pressure (Chart of the Week) and will resonate into 3Q20, even if a market-share war is averted. Failure to stop a market-share war will fill global oil storage, and Brent prices again will trade with a $20 handle by year-end. Demand forecasts by the IEA and prominent banks are tilting toward the first contraction in global oil demand since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Central banks and governments are rolling out fiscal and monetary stimulus to counter the expected hit to global aggregate demand in the wake of COVID-19. Given the extraordinary uncertainty surrounding global oil supply and demand, our balances and prices forecasts are highly tentative. We are reducing our 2020 Brent forecasts to $40/bbl for 2Q-3Q20, and $50/bbl for 4Q20. For 2021, we are expecting Brent to average $60/bbl. WTI trades $3-$4/bbl below Brent in our estimates. Feature Russian officials appear to be seeking a resumption of talks with OPEC. Since the declaration of a market-share war following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 negotiations to agree a production cut to balance global oil markets, Russian officials appear to be seeking a resumption of talks with OPEC.1 Putting such a meeting together before the expiration of OPEC 2.0’s 1.7mm b/d production-cutting deal at the end of this month will be a herculean lift for the coalition, but it can be done. All the same, it may require a quarter or so of re-opened floodgates from KSA and its GCC allies to focus everyone’s attention on the consequences of market-share wars. To that end, the Kingdom announced it will lift production above 12mm b/d, and supply markets out of strategically placed storage around the world. It was joined by the UAE with a pledge to raise output to 4mm b/d. Chart of the WeekMessy OPEC 2.0 Breakdown Crashes Benchmark Crude Prices Messy OPEC 2.0 Breakdown Crashes Benchmark Crude Prices Messy OPEC 2.0 Breakdown Crashes Benchmark Crude Prices Assessing Uncertain Fundamentals While the dramatis personae on the supply side maneuver for advantage, markets still are trying to form expectations on the level of demand destruction in EM and DM wrought by COVID-19. Given the elevated uncertainty around this issue, modeling our ensemble forecast has become more complicated. On the demand side, we are modeling three scenarios for 2020: Global demand growth falls 200k b/d y/y, flat growth, and growth of 600k b/d. Our previous expectations had growth increasing 1mm b/d in 2020 and 1.7mm b/d in 2021. We maintain the rate of growth for next year – 1.7mm b/d – but note it is coming off a lower 2020 base for consumption. On the supply side, it’s a bit more complicated. We have three scenarios: In Scenario 1, we model the OPEC 2.0 breakdown, i.e., OPEC 2.0 gradually increases production by 2.5mm b/d between Apr20 and Dec20. Compared to our previous estimates it also removes the 600k b/d we previously expected would be added to the cuts in 2Q20, which produces a supply increase of 2.5mm b/d + expectation of 600k b/d vs. our previous balances. In Scenario 2, we run our previous balances expectation, which cuts production by a total of 2.3mm b/d in 2Q20, 1.7mm b/d in 2H20, and 1.2mm b/d in 2021.2 Scenario 3 models the additional cuts as recommended by OPEC last in week in Vienna of 1.5mm b/d on top of the 1.7mm b/d already agreed on for 1Q20. These cuts are realized gradually, moving to 2.3mmm b/d in 2Q20 and 3.2mm b/d in 2H20. For 2021, our supply assumptions revert to the OPEC 2.0 production cuts of 1.2mm b/d that prevailed last year. The price expectations generated by these scenarios can be seen in Table 1 and in Charts 2A, 2B, and  2C, which show our supply-side scenarios with the three demand-side scenarios above. We show our balances estimates given these different scenarios in Charts 3A, 3B, and 3C, and our inventory estimates in Charts 4A,  4B, and  4C. Table 1Unstable Brent Price Forecasts Russia Regrets Market-Share War? Russia Regrets Market-Share War? It may require a quarter or so of re-opened floodgates from KSA and its GCC allies to focus everyone’s attention on the consequences of market-share wars. Chart 2AOil Price Scenarios Driver: OPEC vs. Russia Price War Oil Price Scenarios Driver: OPEC vs. Russia Price War Oil Price Scenarios Driver: OPEC vs. Russia Price War Chart 2BOil Price Scenarios Driver: Pre-OPEC 2.0 Breakdown Oil Price Scenarios Driver: Pre-OPEC 2.0 Breakdown Oil Price Scenarios Driver: Pre-OPEC 2.0 Breakdown Chart 2COil Price Scenarios Driver: Proposed OPEC Cuts Oil Price Scenarios Driver: Proposed OPEC Cuts Oil Price Scenarios Driver: Proposed OPEC Cuts Chart 3AOil Balances Scenarios Driver: OPEC vs. Russia Price War Oil Balances Scenarios Driver: OPEC vs. Russia Price War Oil Balances Scenarios Driver: OPEC vs. Russia Price War Chart 3BOil Balances Scenarios Driver: Pre-OPEC 2.0 Breakdown Oil Balances Scenarios Driver: Pre-OPEC 2.0 Breakdown Oil Balances Scenarios Driver: Pre-OPEC 2.0 Breakdown Chart 3COil Balances Scenarios Driver: Proposed OPEC Cuts Oil Balances Scenarios Driver: Proposed OPEC Cuts Oil Balances Scenarios Driver: Proposed OPEC Cuts Chart 4AOECD Inventory Scenarios Driver: OPEC vs. Russia Price War OECD Inventory Scenarios Driver: OPEC vs. Russia Price War OECD Inventory Scenarios Driver: OPEC vs. Russia Price War Chart 4BOECD Inventory Scenarios Driver: Pre-OPEC 2.0 Breakdown OECD Inventory Scenarios Driver: Pre-OPEC 2.0 Breakdown OECD Inventory Scenarios Driver: Pre-OPEC 2.0 Breakdown Chart 4COECD Inventory Scenarios Driver: Proposed OPEC Cuts OECD Inventory Scenarios Driver: Proposed OPEC Cuts OECD Inventory Scenarios Driver: Proposed OPEC Cuts Given all of the moving parts in our forecast this month, we will only be publishing a summary of these estimates (Table 1). We will publish our global balances table next week after we have had time to process the EIA’s and OPEC’s historical demand estimates. Given the dynamics of supply-demand and storage adjustments these different scenarios produce, we use them to roughly estimate forecasts for 2Q and 3Q20, 4Q20 and 2021. We are reducing our 2020 Brent forecasts to $40/bbl for 2Q-3Q20, and $50/bbl for 4Q20. For 2021, we are expecting Brent to average $60/bbl. WTI trades $3-$4/bbl below Brent in our estimates. The implicit assumption here is COVID-19 is contained by 3Q20 and is in the market’s rear-view mirror by 4Q20. Obviously, such an assumption is fraught with uncertainty. Russia May Be Re-Thinking Strategy I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest. Winston Churchill, BBC Broadcast, October 1, 1939.3 Russia appears to be sending up trial balloons to indicate to OPEC it would not be averse to renewing the OPEC 2.0 dialogue. It is worthwhile noting Russian officials immediately responded to KSA’s first mention of sharply higher output – going to 12.3mm bd from 9.7mm b/d – with their own assertion they will lift current output of ~ 11.4mm b/d by 200k – 300k b/d, and ultimately take that to +500k b/d. Of course, as Churchill’s observation makes plain, it is difficult to interpret Russia’s overtures in this regard, particularly in light of the growing popular dissatisfaction with President Vladimir Putin’s regime within Russia itself. At the outset, it seems to us that the cause of the breakdown in OPEC 2.0 was the collapse in demand from China following the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan Province, and Putin’s attempt to secure a longer stay in power.4 The former focused Russia’s oil oligarchs on shoring up market share, and focused Putin on maintaining the support of these important oligarchs. The basis for Russo-Saudi cooperation under the OPEC 2.0 umbrella was rising oil demand, and the simple fact that both sides had exhausted their ability to sustain low prices brought on by the 2014-16 oil-price collapse ushered in by OPEC’s previous market-share war amid the global manufacturing downturn. The slowdown in global demand due to China’s slow-down and the Sino-US trade war in 2019 weakened Russian commitment to OPEC 2.0 by end of year. Putin faced domestic popular discontent and grumbling among the oligarchs (e.g. Igor Sechin, the head of Rosneft), just as he was preparing to extend his term in power. The possibility of a drastic loss of Russian influence over global oil markets – and hence of its own economic independence – emerged at a time when Putin still has the ability to maneuver ahead of the 2021 Duma election and 2024 presidential election which are essential to his maintenance of power. Going into 2020, Russia also had gained monetary and fiscal ammunition over preceding three years that would allow them to challenge KSA within OPEC 2.0, while KSA’s reserves stagnated (Chart 5). The Wuhan Coronavirus pushed things over the edge by hitting Chinese oil demand directly in the gut. Putin gave into the oil sector’s demands for prioritizing market share. As is apparent, this is the critical issue for him and the oligarchs running Russia’s oil and gas companies. Chart 5Foreign Exchange Reserves Foreign Exchange Reserves Foreign Exchange Reserves Russia’s US Focus The fact that US President Donald Trump and Iran are harmed by the oil price collapse is secondary. The Russians may have known that the US and Iran would suffer collateral damage, but their primary objective was not to unseat Trump and definitely not to increase the chances of regime collapse in Iran. It is not unthinkable that President Putin would attempt to upset the US election yet again. Regardless of the relationship between Putin and Trump, Russia benefits from promoting US polarization in general. And the Democrats will impose stricter regulations on US resource industries (including shale). All the same, Russia will suffer from Democrats taking power and strengthening NATO and the trans-Atlantic alliance. A knock on shale is a short-term benefit to Russia, but the loss of Trump as a president who increases geopolitical “multipolarity,” which is good for Russia, would be a long-term loss. President Putin would not have triggered the conflict with Saudi over such a mixed combination. The breakdown of OPEC 2.0 happened after Super Tuesday, so it was clear Biden was leading the US Democratic Party’s bid for the Oval Office come November. Biden is hawkish on Russia and is more likely than Trump to get the Europeans to reduce their energy dependence on Russia. Also, it is possible Trump will benefit from lower oil prices anyway, since it will reduce prices at the pump by November and also help China recover – thus allowing it to boost global demand and follow through on Phase 1 of the Sino-US trade deal. As noted above, market share is primary. The US election, if it is relevant at all, is subsidiary. The Trump administration is furious because the turmoil threatens to upset the US election. As for Iran, Russia does at least consider its position, but is driven by its own needs and, as usual, threw Iran under the bus when necessary. Russia will continue to support the Iranian regime in other ways. And if the consequence of the market-share war is government change in the US, then Iran has its reward. Clearly President Putin was willing to throw President Trump under the bus, as well. It was not surprising to see US officials singling out Russia when discussing the oil-price collapse last week and earlier this week, when US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Russia’s foreign minister, Anatoly Antonov, met in Washington. This blame game is consistent with what we think we know: Russia wavered on the deal presented by OPEC. Saudi Arabia was not the instigator.5 Saudi Arabia massively reacted to retaliate against Russia’s declared price war, but it was Russia that refused to agree to more cuts.6 The Trump administration is furious because the turmoil threatens to upset the US election. From Trump’s perspective, oil and gasoline prices weren’t too high, but, now that they are lower, the risk of higher unemployment in key electoral states – even Texas – is elevated. Trump wanted more oil production but not oil market chaos.  Trump wanted more oil production but not oil market chaos. This short-term thinking is likely to drive US policy in advance of the election, although from a long-term point of view the US has little reason to regret Russia’s actions as Russia is ultimately shooting itself in the foot. From an international point of view, the breakdown shows that Russia and KSA are fundamentally competitive, not cooperative, and the fanfare over improving relations was dependent on stronger oil demand, not vice versa. Russia’s strategy for decades – in the Middle East and elsewhere – has been to take calculated risks, not to undertake reckless adventures that expose its military and economic weaknesses relative to the United States and Europe. This strategic logic applies to the market-share war as well as to Russia’s various conflicts with the West. The oil price collapse is bad for Russia’s economy and internal stability and hence the door to talks is still open. The immediate risk to both KSA and Russia is a forward oil curve that stays lower for longer, regardless of what the Russian Finance Ministry says. A reconciliation between KSA and Russia to restore the production-management deal would limit the negative fallout. The immediate risk to both KSA and Russia is a forward oil curve that stays lower for longer, regardless of what the Russian Finance Ministry says.7 Bottom Line: The COVID-19 pandemic and the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 last week in Vienna dramatically heightened uncertainty and volatility in oil markets. Although it appears Russian officials are trying to walk back the market-share war declared at the end of last week, events already in train could keep oil prices lower for longer. We lowered our oil-price forecasts for 2020 to reflect the demand destruction and a possible supply surge this year. The underlying assumption of our modeling on the demand side is the COVID-19 pandemic will be contained and the global economy will be back in working order by 4Q20. On the supply side, nothing is certain, but we are leaning to a re-formation of OPEC 2.0, which ultimately restores the production-management regime that prevailed until last week. Both of these assumptions are highly unstable. We lowered our 2020 Brent forecasts to $40/bbl for 2Q-3Q20, and to $50/bbl for 4Q20. For 2021, we are expecting Brent to average $60/bbl. WTI trades $3-$4/bbl below Brent in our estimates. These forecasts will be constantly reviewed as new information becomes available. Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Total stocks of crude oil and products in the US drew another 7.6mm barrels in the week ended March 6, 2020, led by distillates, the EIA reported. Crude and product inventories finished the week at close to 1.3 billion barrels (ex SPR barrels). Total product demand – what the EIA called “Product Supplied” – was up close to 600k b/d, led by distillates (e.g., heating oil, diesel, jet and marine gasoil). Commercial crude oil inventories rose by 7.7mm barrels (Chart 6). Base Metals: Neutral After falling almost to the daily downside limit early on Monday, Singapore ferrous futures staged a recovery on Tuesday when iron ore jumped 33%, as declining inventories of the steelmaking material sparked supply concerns among investors. SteelHome Consultancy reported this week Chinese port-side iron ore stocks dropped to 126.25mm MT, down 3.4% for the year. In addition, China’s General Administration of Customs reported iron ore imports rose 1.5% in the January and February relative to the same period a year ago. The decreasing number of new COVID-19 cases in China should help iron ore and steel going forward as construction and infrastructure projects resume. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices are up 9% YTD, supported by accommodative monetary policy globally in the wake of the rapid spread of COVID-19 cases outside of China. Fixed income markets are pricing in 80bps cuts in the Fed funds rate over the next 12 months. Additionally, negative-yielding debt globally – which is highly correlated with gold prices – increased 26% since January 2020. Continued elevated uncertainty stemming from the spread of the coronavirus keeps demand for safe assets buoyant. We estimate the risk premium in gold prices related to this persistent uncertainty is ~$140/oz (Chart 7). Nonetheless, positioning and technical signal it is overbought and vulnerable to a short-term pullback. Ags/Softs:  Underweight In its World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), the USDA lowered its season-average price expectations for the current crop year for corn to $3.80/bu, down 5 cents, and for soybeans to $8.70/bu, a decrease of 5 cents. The USDA kept its expectation for wheat at $4.55/bu. The Department estimates global soybean production will increase 2.4mm MT, with most of this stemming from increases in Argentina and Brazil. CONAB, Brazil’s USDA equivalent, confirmed this projected increase, saying the country’s soybean output is poised to rise 8% to a record 124.2 Mn Tons this year. May soybean futures were up slightly, as were corn and wheat on Tuesday. Chart 6 US Crude Inventories Are Rising US Crude Inventories Are Rising Chart 7 Russia Regrets Market-Share War? Russia Regrets Market-Share War?   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Please see Russia keeps door open for OPEC amid threats to raise output, published by worldoil.com; Russian ministry, oil firms to meet after OPEC talks collapse -sources, published by reuters.com March 10, 2020, and Russia says it can deal with pain of a Saudi oil price war published by ft.com March 9, 2020. 2     For non-OPEC 2.0 countries, we also included downward adjustments to Libya and US shale production vs. our previous balances 3    Please see “The Russian Enigma,” published by The Churchill Society. See also Kitchen, Martin (1987), “Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union during the Second World War,” The Historical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2), pp. 415-436. 4    We also would observe Russian producers never fully abided by the output cuts voluntarily in every instance. Often, compliance was due to (1) seasonal maintenance; (2) extreme temperatures in the winter, and (3) the pipeline contamination incident. Thus, producers were probably close to full capacity most of the time OPEC 2.0's production cuts were in place. This implies that for a minor voluntary production cut, Russia enjoyed prices close to $70/bbl, vs. mid $30s currently. This begs the question why they would provoke a market-share war when they would have been better off continuing to flaut their quotas instead of collapsing prices. 5    Please see Mnuchin wants ‘orderly’ oil markets in talk with Russian ambassador published by worldoil.com March 9, 2020. 6    One could argue that while the Saudis reacted quickly and threatened a massive response, they may have been less fearful of a breakdown given the recognition that it could seriously damage Iran’s economy. 7     The Financial Times noted Russia’s confidence that its National Wealth Fund of ~ $150 billion, equivalent to ~ 9% of GDP, which officials believe allows it “to remain competitive at any predicted price range and keep its market share” – i.e., the state will draw down the fund to cover any difference between low oil prices and domestic oil company’s breakeven prices. Energy Minister Alexander Novak said Russia would “pay special attention to providing the domestic market with a stable supply of oil products and protecting the sector’s investment potential.” Please see Russia says it candDeal with the pain of a Saudi price war, published by ft.com March 9, 2020.  

Highlights Bear markets occur in phases, and their narrative can mutate. What began as a selloff caused by the coronavirus outbreak could well mutate into an oil crash-led selloff, and then mutate again into a selloff due to policy omnipotence, or something else. We are reiterating our short positions in the EM equity index and a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar as well as our defensive positioning in EM domestic bonds and credit markets. We are taking profits on our long gold/short oil and copper trade. Oil prices may stabilize, but risks are still skewed to the downside. We are also booking gains on our long Russian domestic bonds/short oil position. Feature Chart I-1A Record Low Currency VOL Is Followed By Major Market Disturbances A Record Low Currency VOL Is Followed By Major Market Disturbances A Record Low Currency VOL Is Followed By Major Market Disturbances Global financial markets are witnessing the unwinding of the policy put. For the past several years, the consensus in the global investment community was that risk assets could not go down because of policy puts from the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury and President Trump, the European Central Bank and the Chinese authorities. Similarly, crude oil prices had been supported by OPEC 2.0’s put from December 2016 until recently. The latest panic and broad-based liquidation of risk assets has been due not only to fear and uncertainty related to the rapid escalation in COVID-19 cases around the world, but also to investor realization that these policy puts are ineffectual. The Fed’s 50-basis-point intra-meeting rate cut proved incapable of stabilizing global risk assets. Investors have begun to doubt the efficacy of policy puts and have thrown in the proverbial towel. Crucially, the high-speed and intensity of the selloff was due to widespread complacency and overbought conditions in risk assets. In our January 23 report, we quoted Bob Prince, co-CIO of Bridgewater, who stated in Davos that “…we have probably seen the end of the boom-bust cycle.” This comment was consistent with prevalent complacency in global financial markets, reflected in very tight credit spreads worldwide, high US equity multiples and record-low implied volatility in various asset classes. In the same January 23 report, we wrote: “Any time an influential person has made a similar declaration in the past, it marked a major turning point in financial markets. Remarkably, implied volatility for the US dollar has plummeted to a record low, as it has for EM currencies and a wide range of equity markets. Chart I-1 illustrates the implied volatility for EM currencies and the US dollar. Such low levels of implied currency market volatility historically preceded major moves in currency markets and often led to a material selloff in broad EM financial markets.” In that same report , we recommended going long implied EM currency volatility. Since then JP Morgan’s EM currency volatility has risen from 6% to 10%. What began as a selloff caused by the coronavirus outbreak could well mutate into an oil crash-led selloff, and then mutate again into a selloff due to policy omnipotence, or something else. Consistent with this thesis, we reinstated our short EM equity index recommendation in the following week’s report – on January 30. The MSCI EM stock index is down 11% since then. Our target is 800, which is 18% below current levels (Chart I-2, top panel). Chart I-2EM Stocks: A Breakdown In The Making EM Stocks: A Breakdown In The Making EM Stocks: A Breakdown In The Making Market Narratives Mutate Chart I-3VIX Surge In Early 2018 Was A Trigger Not Cause Of Selloff VIX Surge In Early 2018 Was A Trigger Not Cause Of Selloff VIX Surge In Early 2018 Was A Trigger Not Cause Of Selloff Narratives of all large market moves are always expounded in retrospect. Only after a selloff is well-advanced do investors and commentators come up with reasons for it and build a plausible narrative describing it. Critically, bear markets occur in phases, and their narrative can evolve. What began as a selloff caused by the coronavirus outbreak could well mutate into an oil crash-led selloff, and then mutate again into a selloff due to policy omnipotence, or something else. For example, the early 2018 selloff in global equities and industrial commodities was at the time attributed to the spike in US equity volatility (Chart I-3, top and middle panels). In retrospect, January 2018 marked a major top in the global business cycle (Chart I-3, bottom line). Hence, the true reason for the late-January 2018 top in global stocks and industrial commodities was a downturn in global manufacturing and trade and not the surge in the VIX. The key question investors are currently wrestling with is the following: How deep will this selloff be, and how long will it last? Our view is that the selloff in EM and global risk assets is not yet over. As such, we are reiterating our short positions in the EM equity index and a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar, as well as our defensive positioning in EM domestic bonds and credit markets. Gauging The Downside There is no doubt that global growth will be affected by the spread of COVID-19 and the precautionary measures taken by the authorities, companies and households around the world to contain the outbreak.   Further, growth visibility is extremely low, and that uncertainty is raising the risk premiums that investors demand. The latter is weighing on risk assets in general and global share prices in particular.  Presently, precise forecasts for GDP growth and a potential trajectory of COVID-19 cases are not credible, and hence cannot be relied upon to formulate a sound investment strategy. If the current bloodbath in risk assets persists, a market bottom could be reached well before bad economic data are released or COVID-19 infection cases peak. Given the uncertainty related to both the global growth trajectory and the Covid-19 epidemic, the only way for investors to gauge a market bottom is to continuously examine valuations, technicals and market internals. With respect to valuations and technicals, we have the following observations: The EM equity index seems to breaking below its major support lines. If this breakdowns transpires, there is an air pocket until the index reaches its next technical support, which is 18% below its current level (please refer to the top panel of Chart I-2 on page 3). If the EM MSCI equity index drops to this support range, it would be trading at 11 times its trailing earnings (please refer to the bottom panel of Chart I-2 on page 3). At those levels, the EM equity index would be discounting a lot of bad news, making it immune to dismal economic data and general uncertainty. For the S&P 500, if the current defense line – which held been during 2011, 2015 and 2018 selloffs – is violated, the next long-term technical support is around 2400-2500 (Chart I-4). Inflows to EM fixed-income funds were enormous in 2019. Meanwhile, EM corporate and sovereign spreads have broken out (Chart I-5). Provided this selloff commenced from very overbought and expensive levels, the odds are that liquidation forces will not abate right now and that the selloff in EM fixed income has further to go. Chart I-4S&P 500: Where Technical Support Lies? S&P 500: Where Technical Support Lies? S&P 500: Where Technical Support Lies? Chart I-5EM Sovereign And Corporate Spreads Have Broken Out EM Sovereign And Corporate Spreads Have Broken Out EM Sovereign And Corporate Spreads Have Broken Out   In a nutshell, we suspect that EM local currency bonds and credit markets received a lot of inflows from European investors in recent years because yields were negative across European fixed-income markets. A weak euro was a boon for European investors investing in EM. That, however, is reversing. Since the recent sharp appreciation in the euro and the nosedive in EM currencies, EM financial market returns in euros have collapsed. This will likely prompt an exodus of European investors from EM financial markets. Chart I-6A Major Breakdown In This Cyclical Indicator A Major Breakdown In This Cyclical Indicator A Major Breakdown In This Cyclical Indicator Even though the EM equity index is not expensive or overbought, rising EM USD and local currency bond yields herald lower share prices, as we discussed at length in last week’s report. Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven currency ratio1  has plummeted below its major technical support and the next level is significantly lower. In other words, this indicator is also in an air pocket (Chart I-6). Given it is extremely well-correlated with EM share prices, the latter will not bottom until this indicator stabilizes. Technical configurations of high-beta and cyclical segments of the global equity universe are consistent with failed breakouts. Such a profile is typically not followed by a correction, but by a major drawdown. These include the European aggregate equity index, the Nikkei, global industrials and US high-beta stocks (Chart I-7). Chart I-7AFailed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Failed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Failed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Chart I-7BFailed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Failed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Failed Breakouts Are Often Followed By Large Drawdowns Chart I-8The Global Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio Is Back To 2011 Levels The Global Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio Is Back To 2011 Levels The Global Stocks-To-Bonds Ratio Is Back To 2011 Levels Finally, the global stock-to-bond ratio has decisively broken below the upward sloping channel that has been in place since 2009 (Chart I-8). Typically, when a market or ratio experiences such a major breakdown, the recovery does not occur quickly and is unlikely to be V-shaped. In short, the structural breakdown in the global stocks-to-bond ratio suggests that global share prices will likely stay under downward pressure for some time. Bottom Line: Odds are that risk assets remain in a liquidation phase and investors should avoid catching a falling knife. The odds are also high that EM share prices in US dollar terms have another 18% downside. We reckon at those levels – where the MSCI EM equity index is around 800 – it would be safe to start accumulating EM equities, even if the global growth outlook remains mired in uncertainty. For now, we recommend playing EM on the short side. What To Do With Oil Plays Despite periodic spikes in crude prices over the past few years, we have held our conviction that oil is in a structural bear market. We doubted the sustainability of the OPEC 2.0 arrangement, arguing that Russia would not cooperate with Saudi Arabia in the long term. Russia did cooperate much longer than we had expected, temporarily supporting oil prices. Ultimately, Russian President Vladimir Putin abandoned the cartel late last week, and the Saudis have hit back with massive price discounts amid large output increases. Consequently, oil prices have crashed and are presently oversold (Chart I-9). Given the uncertainty related to both the global growth trajectory and the Covid-19 epidemic, the only way for investors to gauge a market bottom is to continuously examine valuations, technicals and market internals. However, there will be no rapprochement between the Saudis and the Russians for some time. Given the drop in demand amid sharp increases in supply, crude oil prices may well slide further. Since July 11, 2019, we have been recommending a long gold/short oil and copper trade (Chart I-10). This position has generated a large 40% gain. Today, we are taking profits on this trade. Instead, we are replacing it with a new position: long gold/short copper. Chart I-9A Long-Term Profile Of Oil Prices A Long-Term Profile Of Oil Prices A Long-Term Profile Of Oil Prices Chart I-10Book Profits On Long Gold / Short Oil And Copper Trade Book Profits On Long Gold / Short Oil And Copper Trade Book Profits On Long Gold / Short Oil And Copper Trade   Among oil plays, we have been overweight Mexico and Russia within EM, both in fixed income and equity universes. That said, for absolute return investors, we have not been recommending unhedged long positions in either Mexico or Russia because of our expectation of a drop in oil prices and the ensuing broad-based EM selloff. Regarding Russia, for investors who were looking to gain exposure to local currency bonds, we have been recommending that they hedge this position by shorting oil since November 14, 2019. This recommendation has paid off well, and we are closing this position with a 26% gain. We will be looking to buy Russian local bonds unhedged in the weeks ahead. Chart I-11Relative Performance Of Russian And Mexican Domestic Bonds Is Facing Near-Term Headwinds Relative Performance Of Russian And Mexican Domestic Bonds Is Facing Near-Term Headwinds Relative Performance Of Russian And Mexican Domestic Bonds Is Facing Near-Term Headwinds In Mexico, we have also been reluctant to recommend naked exposure to local currency or US dollar bonds because of our bearish view on oil and the risk of large outflows from EM that would hurt the peso. Indeed, the oil crash and outflows from EM have led to a plunge in the Mexican currency. Instead, in Mexico we have been recommending betting on yield curve steepening. The proposition has been that short rates are anchored by a disinflationary backdrop and tight fiscal policy in Mexico while the long end of the curve could sell off in a scenario of capital outflows from EM. As with Russia, we are monitoring Mexican markets and are looking to recommend buying domestic bonds without hedging the currency risk in the weeks or months ahead. Bottom Line: We are taking profits on our long gold/short oil and copper trade. Oil prices may stabilize, but risks are still skewed to the downside. In the near term, the relative performance of Mexican and Russian stocks and local currency bonds versus their respective EM benchmarks could be undermined by capital outflows from EM in general and these countries in particular (Chart I-11). Nevertheless, both nations’ macro fundamentals remain benign, and their fixed-income and equity markets will outperform their EM peers in the medium term. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes   1     Calculated as ratio of equal-weighted average of total return indices of cad, aud, nzd, brl, idr, mxn, rub, clp & zar relative to average of jpy & chf total returns (including carry); rebased to 100 at January 2000. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

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 Oil Sell-Off Accelerates, As Market-Share War Looms Oil Sell-Off Accelerates, As Market-Share War Looms Chart 2A Market-Share War Will Keep Oil Prices Depressed A Market-Share War Will Keep Oil Prices Depressed A 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 Higher Production Will Overwhelm Demand In Market-Share War Higher Production Will Overwhelm Demand In Market-Share War Chart 4Market-Share War Could Exhaust Storage Forcing Production Out of The Market Market-Share War Could Exhaust Storage Forcing Production Out of The Market Market-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 Foreign Exchange Reserves Foreign Exchange Reserves Chart 6Russian Ruble Sell-Off Presages Inflation Russian Ruble Sell-Off Presages Inflation Russian 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 Russian GDP More Sensitive to Brent Prices Russian 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.  

Highlights Crude oil prices fell ~ 10% Friday after Russia refused to support additional production cuts agreed by OPEC in Vienna (Chart 1). As we go to press, Brent is trading close to $45/bbl and WTI is trading ~ $41/bbl. OPEC producers could implement the go-to strategy they’ve employed in the wake of past demand shocks and cut production on their own, in order to balance the market. That said, there are indications the Saudis will not shoulder the market-balancing role alone. Russian producers have consistently demanded relief from production restraints since 2017, when OPEC 2.0 took over balancing the market. With shale-oil producers on the back foot owing to parsimonious capital markets, Russia could finally be able to deliver the coup de grâce it has been waiting for. This supply shock hits the market as COVID-19 threatens demand globally. Whatever Russia’s intent – be it removing the near-certainty of a production cut, which it always agreed to in the past, or crippling US shale production – two-way risk has returned to these Vienna meetings. Feature Oil markets once again are faced with a possible price collapse – not unlike the swan dive seen when OPEC’s market-share war took Brent from more than $110/bbl in mid-2014 to $26/bbl by early 2016. The proximate aim of that market-share war – led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) – was to significantly reduce the revenue Iran would receive when it returned to export markets, following its agreement with the US to end its nuclear program in 2015. Tanking oil prices was the most expedient way of accomplishing this. Secondarily, shale-oil producers also may have been targeted, although such a goal was never clearly articulated by KSA’s leadership. Chart 1Russia's Supply Shock Craters Brent, WTI Prices Russia's Supply Shock Craters Brent, WTI Prices Russia's Supply Shock Craters Brent, WTI Prices OPEC’s market-share war did thin the US oil-shale herd, but it did not destroy the industry. If anything, it forced shale-oil producers to focus on their best drilling prospects with their best rigs and crews. This produced a leaner more productive technology-driven cohort of drillers, which posted record production levels on a regular basis. Indeed, by the end of 2019, US production topped 12.9mm b/d – 8.2mm b/d of which was accounted for by shale-oil output – making the US the largest oil and gas producer in the world. The market-share war also brought KSA and Russia together in November 2016 as the putative leaders of OPEC 2.0. The sole mission of this unlikely coalition was to clear the global inventory overhang left in the wake of the market-share war by managing OPEC and non-OPEC production. Russia’s Coup de Grâce Managing global production and inventories with KSA – while US shale-oil producers continued to raise their output to new records regularly – never sat well with Russia’s oil producers.   Managing global production and inventories with KSA – while US shale-oil producers continued to raise their output to new records regularly – never sat well with Russia’s oil producers. Ahead of OPEC 2.0 meetings in Vienna, Russian oligarchs could be counted on to demand higher output levels, and President Vladimir Putin could be counted on to deliver something close to agreed production cuts in time to assuage markets. This semi-annual ritual came to resemble a tightly choreographed set-piece, which may have inured market participants to the oligarchs’ resolve to ultimately increase production levels. Russia certainly was well-prepared when it delivered Friday’s supply shock. Time will tell, but Friday’s breakdown in Vienna could be the coup de grâce Russia’s oligarchs have been waiting to deliver to US shale producers since the formation of OPEC 2.0. Or it could be a well-timed reminder that nothing in oil markets is certain – particularly Russian compliance with production-restraint agreements. The once-certain 11th-hour agreement to adhere to whatever production-cutting agreements OPEC 2.0 came up with is now gone. And with it, the high-probability bet that, regardless of the tensions leading up to the Vienna meetings, a production-management agreement would be delivered, and shale-oil producers would live to fight another day. Chart 2Russia, KSA Foreign Exchange Reserves Russia, KSA Foreign Exchange Reserves Russia, KSA Foreign Exchange Reserves Whatever the case, Russia certainly was well-prepared when it delivered Friday’s supply shock. It has steadily built its foreign-exchange reserves since the price collapse begun in 2014, which now stand at $446 billion, up 45% from their nadir of 2015 (Chart 2). KSA’s foreign-exchange reserves, on the other hand, fell sharply in the wake of the 2014 – 2016 market-share war and have languished at lower levels since. Chart 3Russia, KSA Per-Capita Income Russia's Supply Shock To Oil Markets Russia's Supply Shock To Oil Markets Still, the Kingdom is not without stout resources. It’s gross national income per capita is ~ 2x that of Russia’s (Chart 3), and its days-forward import cover expressed in terms of days of foreign reserves is similarly stout (Chart 4). Chart 4Russia, KSA Import Cover Russia's Supply Shock To Oil Markets Russia's Supply Shock To Oil Markets The economies of both KSA and Russia are exquisitely linked to Brent oil prices (Chart 5). So tempting another market-share or price war is a strategy that could not be sustained by either country for an extended period of time. Chart 5Russia, KSA GDP vs Brent Prices Russia, KSA GDP vs Brent Prices Russia, KSA GDP vs Brent Prices Chart 6Russia, KSA GDP Highly Sensitive To Brent Prices Russia, KSA GDP Highly Sensitive To Brent Prices Russia, KSA GDP Highly Sensitive To Brent Prices The End Of OPEC 2.0? Post-GFC, we estimate Russia’s real GDP elasticity to changes in oil prices is close to twice that of Saudi Arabia. This suggests Russia’s strategy could have dismal consequences for its economy. Oil markets will gnaw on Friday’s breakdown in Vienna, sorting out the signals that were missed in Russian messaging, and figuring out what happens next. Neither Russia nor KSA have the resources to wage an indefinite war of attrition with US shale producers. Both are highly dependent on oil revenues to sustain their economies (Chart 6). Of the two, Russia’s economy is more sensitive to Brent oil prices than KSA’s, as it markets more of its output in trading markets. Post-GFC, we estimate Russia’s real GDP elasticity to changes in oil prices is close to twice that of Saudi Arabia. This suggests Russia’s strategy could have dismal consequences for its economy. Russia’s $50/bbl fiscal breakeven price vs. KSA’s $84/bbl price might give Russia more staying power in the short run, but with per-capita income at roughly half that of Saudi citizens, it will not want to revisit the dire days of 2014-16 when its economy last suffered through an oil-price collapse.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com  

Highlights OPEC 2.0 ministers continue to negotiate oil production cuts to replace those expiring this month. We expect cuts of 1mm b/d – perhaps more – extending to end-June, undertaken to offset COVID-19-induced demand destruction. Making the not-unreasonable assumptions of no change in US sanctions-related output losses – 1mm b/d in Venezuela and 2mm b/d in Iran – and that 1mm b/d of Libyan output stays offline, the 1mm b/d cut coming out of this week’s meeting in Vienna will push average 1H20 OPEC 2.0 outages – planned and unplanned – to ~ 5mm b/d. The US economy is growing ~ 2.7% p.a., suggesting the Fed’s surprise 50bp rate cut this week is aimed at reducing global economic policy uncertainty (GEPU), lowering its accompanying USD safe-haven demand, and guarding against a collapse in US money velocity (Chart of the Week). This will weaken the USD, thereby supporting EM incomes and oil demand. We continue to expect policymakers in China to overshoot on fiscal and monetary stimulus, as they scramble to deliver 6% pa growth this year. Feature In the wake of ongoing negotiations – right into today’s meeting in Vienna – we expect OPEC 2.0 to deliver a production cut of at least 1mm b/d for 2Q20. Maybe more. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states have been lobbying for a large cut – 1mm b/d at least. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s (KSA) consistently lobbied for such cuts, and was instrumental in achieving the 1.7mm b/d output reduction for this quarter when the coalition met at the end of last year in Vienna. KSA’s partner in OPEC 2.0, Russia, has been slow to support production cuts going into this week’s meeting, which is the stance it typically takes during these negotiations. Nonetheless, it did agree in December to cuts, and we expect they will do so again this week. After this go-round, we’re likely to see an agreement to meet in June to determine whether cuts should be extended and/or expanded.1 Chart of the WeekFed Rate Cut Meant To Reduce Uncertainty Fed Rate Cut Meant To Reduce Uncertainty Fed Rate Cut Meant To Reduce Uncertainty The 1mm b/d in planned outages for 2Q20 coming out of this week’s meetings would add to the ~ 4mm b/d of unplanned outages in Venezuela, Iran and Libya this year. If the producer coalition fails to agree to a significant output cut this week, we would expect a sell-off in crude oil that takes Brent prices below $50/bbl, and WTI into the mid-$40s (Chart 2). An agreement to remove at least 1mm b/d of output likely will push Brent into the mid-$50s and WTI into the low-$50s during in 2Q20. Assuming the COVID-19 outbreak subsides by then, we expect Brent to rally in 2H20, with prices trading above $60/bbl and WTI trading $4/bbl below that on average. We will be updating our supply-demand balances and forecasts when we get fresh historical data from the key agencies (EIA, OPEC and IEA). The 1mm b/d in planned outages for 2Q20 coming out of this week’s meetings would add to the ~ 4mm b/d of unplanned outages in Venezuela, Iran and Libya. If these persist to end-June, planned and unplanned OPEC 2.0 production outages would average more than 5mm b/d in 1H20 (Chart 3). Chart 2A Failure To Cut Production Would Push Benchmark Crudes Lower A Failure To Cut Production Would Push Benchmark Crudes Lower A Failure To Cut Production Would Push Benchmark Crudes Lower Chart 3Core OPEC 2.0 Will Agree Cuts Core OPEC 2.0 Will Agree Cuts Core OPEC 2.0 Will Agree Cuts On the demand side, the big global hit to growth from China in 1Q20 should be out of the system by the end of 1H20, assuming the COVID-19 outbreak does not shut down global commerce the way it did in China. We think the odds of such a shutdown are low, given such policies only can be implemented by a central government in which all power is consolidated in a ruling party. Besides, given the massive hit to China’s manufacturing – auto production was down 80% y/y in February, e.g. – such policies are unlikely to be recommended in all but the most dire of circumstances. We continue to expect Chinese policymakers to overshoot on their fiscal and monetary stimulus, as they scramble to get 2020 GDP growth back above a 6% p.a. rate. Our view aligns with BCA’s China Investment Strategy, which last week observed, “It is becoming evident that the Chinese leadership is willing to abandon its financial de-risking agenda in exchange for a rapid economic recovery.”2 Our colleagues go on to note, “Monetary conditions are already more accommodative than during the last easing cycle in 2015/2016. The recently announced policy initiatives on infrastructure, housing, and automobile sectors also resemble policy supports that led to a V-shaped economic recovery in 2016.” Fed Cuts Rates To Reduce Uncertainty The economic pressure arising from a strong USD is particularly acute for EM economies. Even before the COVID-19 outbreak in China at the end of last year, global economic policy uncertainty (GEPU) and the broad trade-weighted USD (USD TWIB) were hitting new highs. This was driven by trade wars, the emergence of left- and right-wing populists globally, uncertainty over the effectiveness of monetary policy, and a host of other issues that drove investors, firms and households to seek safe-haven assets like the dollar (Chart 4). In fact, these variables became highly correlated over the past 3-, 4- and 5-year intervals.3 The novel coronavirus outbreak in China, which literally shut down China’s economy in January and February, added to this uncertainty. It continues to lurk in the background now that the coronavirus has spread globally. This also contributes to safe-haven USD demand. While a rate cut cannot address the COVID-19 directly, it can loosen financial conditions – thus removing some uncertainty at the margin – and reduce USD strength. The economic pressure arising from a strong USD is particularly acute for EM economies, which are the dominant source of commodity demand growth globally (Chart 5). At the margin, this demand for dollars arising from increased global policy uncertainty suppresses oil demand growth in EM economies, by raising its cost in local-currency terms ex-US and ex-GCC producing states with currencies pegged to the dollar. It also incentivizes production at the margin, as local-currency costs are depressed, which reduces local costs, while revenues are realized in USD – the perfect arb. Chart 4Global Uncertainty Was High Before COVID-19 Hit Markets Global Uncertainty Was High Before COVID-19 Hit Markets Global Uncertainty Was High Before COVID-19 Hit Markets Chart 5EM Growth Suppressed By Strong USD EM Growth Suppressed By Strong USD EM Growth Suppressed By Strong USD Exploring The Dominant Currency Paradigm The USD’s dominance of global trade is receiving considerable attention in academia and at the Fed. The USD’s dominance of global trade is receiving considerable attention in academia and at the Fed. One theory we find useful is the “Dominant Currency Paradigm,” which holds the dollar is the dominant currency in the world and is used disproportionally vis-à-vis its GDP weight in the global economy (Chart 6). Its dominance is reflected in (1) invoicing of international trade, (2) bank funding, (3) corporate borrowing, (4) central-bank reserve holdings, and (5) the relatively low expected returns accruing to USD-denominated risk-free assets that violate uncovered interest-rate parity no-arbitrage conditions – i.e., the dollar’s so-called “exorbitant privilege.”4 Chart 6USD Is The Dominant EM Invoicing Currency OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices Demand for USD rises when global economic policy uncertainty rises, which is why dollar liquidity is crucial: When demand for safe asset spikes, there is a need for aggressive liquidity (supply) of dollar to avoid a market collapse (Chart 7).5 By cutting US rates now, the Fed is effectively increasing USD supply and/or removing some of the demand for USD relative to other currencies. This will be especially important if global economic policy uncertainty remains strong. This somewhat buffers EM corporates and governments with high levels of USD-denominated debt against a rush to safe-haven USD holdings. We believe this will ease financial conditions in EM economies, which should, all else equal, provide more of a shock absorber for uncertainty generally. Chart 7Dollar Liquidity Mutes US Dollar Appreciation Dollar Liquidity Mutes US Dollar Appreciation Dollar Liquidity Mutes US Dollar Appreciation   Our modeling suggests higher global economic policy uncertainty (GEPU) can shock the USD TWIB, US 10-year Treasurys and EM trade volumes directly. In addition, USD-denominated debt is relatively pronounced in some EM economies (Chart 8). USD appreciation increases domestic banks’ liabilities vs. assets. This is negative for bank’s balance sheets and leads to a tightening in financial conditions, which limits growth. EM corporate bond issuers are exquisitely sensitive to USD movements as they affect their capacity to service foreign-currency debt. Chart 8A Strong US Dollar Hurts Vulnerable EM Economies OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices It is important to remember the US economy continues to perform relatively strongly against other major economies, with 1Q20 US GDP growth estimated by the Atlanta Fed’s Nowcast at 2.7% p.a. The fact that the Fed surprised markets with a 50bp rate cut suggests to us it is concerned with EM growth slowing sharply if the coronavirus becomes a global threat. The Fed also is likely to be concerned that lower US consumer confidence will lead to a decrease in the velocity of money. This concern also is addressed by increasing money supply pre-emptively. Our modeling suggests higher global economic policy uncertainty (GEPU) can shock the USD TWIB, US 10-year Treasurys and EM trade volumes directly, and that these shocks can persist (Chart 9).6 The Fed's policy action today will, if our modeling is correct, reduce demand for USD as a safe haven, all else equal, reduce long-term US rates and boost EM trade volumes. Bottom Line: We expect OPEC 2.0 to deliver at least 1mm b/d of production cuts in 2Q20, which will be reviewed at the end of June to determine whether they should be extended or deepened. Global economic policy uncertainty remains high, supporting demand for the USD. We believe the Fed’s surprise rate cut this week was directed at alleviating some of the global uncertainty keeping the USD well bid, in an attempt to buffer EM economies affected by USD demand. It also is a safeguard against a collapse in the velocity of money in the US that could occur if uncertainty were to suddenly rise. Chart 9GEPU Shocks Are Transmitted To USD And US Treasurys OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight The EIA’s weekly inventory report gives no evidence of a COVID-19-induced backup in crude and product inventories in the US. Total stocks of crude and products fell almost 12mm barrels last week on the back of strong product draws, led by gasoline and distillates, both of which were down close to 5mm barrels on the week. Commercial crude oil inventories were mostly unchanged at ~ 445mm barrels. Crude oil exports rose almost 500k b/d last week to 4.15mm b/d, accounting for most of the 9.73mm b/d of crude and product exports from the US. (Chart 10). Base Metals: Neutral Expectations China will deploy aggressive stimulus targeting infrastructure and manufacturing activities in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, along with Brazil reporting a 15% month-on-month decline in exports of iron ore helped iron ore and steel futures post significant gains earlier this week, with the Singapore Exchange's 62% Fe Iron Ore futures closing 5.6% higher on Monday. However, these gains were short-lived – and will remain capped in the short-term – as weak Chinese demand persists and steel rebar inventories remain at record highs. Precious Metals: Neutral Amid a broader market sell-off gold prices dipped 4.5% on Friday – the worst performance since 2013 – but have since recovered, on the back of the Fed’s surprise rate cut this week. The US central bank delivered an emergency 50bps rate cut on Tuesday, gold erased all the losses with spot prices rising 3.2% at the close, to reach $1645.27/oz. Silver followed a similar pattern rebounding 2.9% on Tuesday, closing at $17.22/oz. We are long both metals and believe more upside is yet to come if central banks around the world coordinate on additional monetary easing (Chart 11). Ags/Softs:  Underweight Expectations of a stronger stimulus in response to COVID-19 pushed soybeans higher for a third consecutive day on Tuesday, with prices hitting a 6-week high intraday. Bean prices then retreat and close 0.3% higher than the previous session. Gains were capped by favorable weather conditions in Brazil, leading analysts to expect a record harvest this season. Wheat also rebounded on the Fed’s rate-cut news after a sluggish week that saw prices falling almost 5%. Uncertainty still reigns though, as the Australian Bureau of Agriculture crop report predicts wheat output to recover 41% to 21.4 Mn Mt in 2020, due to rainfall ending a period of severe drought. The most active wheat futures were up 0.8% at Tuesday’s close. Chart 10US Crude Oil Exports Are Rising US Crude Oil Exports Are Rising US Crude Oil Exports Are Rising Chart 11Lower Real Rates Will Support Gold Lower Real Rates Will Support Gold Lower Real Rates Will Support Gold       Footnotes 1     We do not rule out the possibility KSA or the GCC core producers shoulder the lion’s share of the cuts they seek, in order to balance the market. 2     Please see China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook? published by BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy February 26, 2020. It is available as cis.bcaresearch.com. 3    This heightened uncertainty – i.e., the increase in “unknown unknowns” markets are attempting to process – is a recurrent theme in our research. See, e.g., 2020 Key Views: Policy Uncertainty Continues To Drive Commodity Markets published December 19, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4    Please see Gopinath, Gita and Jeremy Stein. “Banking, Trade, and the Making of a Dominant Currency,” Working Paper currently under revision for the Quarterly Journal of Economics. 5    Gopinath (2016) finds that the dollar’s share as an invoicing currency for imported goods is approximately 4.7 times the share of U.S. goods in imports. Please see Gopinath, Gita. “The International Price System.” Jackson Hole Symposium Proceedings, published in January 2016. See also Obstfeld, Maurice (2019), “Global Dimensions of U.S. Monetary Policy,” presented at the Federal Reserve Board Conference on Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communication Practices (A Fed Listens Event) in Washington June 4, 2019. 6    Our results reflect the vector autoregression (VAR) model we use to study the interaction of GEPU shocks and the USD TWIB and US 10-year treasurys.   Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices OPEC 2.0 Cuts, Fed Rate Cuts Will Support Oil Prices