Italy

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The ongoing pandemic underscores the need for fiscal and monetary policymakers to continue to provide a reflationary “bridge” until vaccination ends the threat to the health care system. The pending deal being discussed between US congressional negotiators is not perfect, but it is likely to be a credible extension of the US fiscal bridge and it clarifies the path from the near-term growth outlook (which is negative), to the cyclical outlook (which is positive). The surprisingly strong euro area flash services PMI in December likely reflects the quick removal of restrictions that may soon need to be reimposed. European leaders will either need to provide additional fiscal support to their economies if the strain on the health care system does not soon relent, or economic activity will have to become increasingly dependent on external demand. China’s credit impulse has likely peaked, but economic activity will continue to accelerate in the first half of 2021 and will positively contribute to global growth. Our baseline view is that credit tightening in China will not lead to a meaningful drag on global growth in the second half of next year, but the history of policy “oversteering” in China means that the risks of a policy overkill cannot be ruled out. A likely extension of the reflationary bridge in the US coupled with strengthening Chinese demand has meaningfully reduced the odds of a deflationary outcome over the next year. Extreme technical conditions suggest that a moderate correction in stocks is possible in the first quarter, but the next significant episode of risk-off sentiment should be bought rather than sold. Investors should position in favor of risky assets over a 6-12 month horizon. Feature Our recently published 2021 Outlook report laid out the main macroeconomic themes that we see driving markets next year, as well as our cyclical investment recommendations. In this month’s report we briefly discuss the nearer-term outlook for growth through the lens of fiscal policy. Still Some Way To Go Chart I-1Slowing Economic Activity In Developed Economies Over the very near term, growth will remain unavoidably linked to the dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic. The second/third wave of infections that began in September has forced the re-imposition of restrictions in most European countries, as well as in some US states. High-frequency economic indicators clearly show that the European economy contracted in Q4 (Chart I-1), whereas in the US the slowdown has so far been less pronounced. The US economy continued to expand in the fourth quarter with the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model projecting 11% annualized growth, driven heavily by a sizeable change in private inventories (Chart I-2).   Chart I-2US Q4 Growth Is Set To Be Large, But Driven Mostly By Inventories The relationship between the pandemic and the economy has shifted since the spring. Back then, the rapid spread of the disease and the mostly unknown nature of the virus triggered a forceful response from policymakers. Widespread restrictions on movement and economic activity were imposed to stem the spread. However, those measures came at a high economic and social cost. With economic activity still running far below pre-pandemic levels and an increasingly weary and resistant public, policymakers have become highly reluctant to re-impose aggressive measures. As a driver of policy, the key consideration is the extent of pressure on medical systems. Chart I-3 highlights the situation in Europe. Daily ICU occupancy exploded in several European countries in October, which led to the new restrictions at the end of that month. In the US, COVID-19 hospitalizations are now nearly twice as high as they were in April and July, and for now many new state-level restrictions are not mandatory. But New York City’s mayor noted earlier this week that a “full shutdown” was likely following Christmas, highlighting that many parts of the US may be facing meaningfully tighter restrictions in the weeks ahead if the pace of new infections does not level off. Chart I-4 presents an estimate of the COVID-19 reproduction value (“R-naught”) in the US and in advanced economies outside the US, which highlights that it is too soon to confidently project a peak. Even outside the US, where restrictions have recently been tighter and progress has been made at reducing the number of intensive care patients, the reproduction number has crept back above one after some restrictions were loosened. Chart I-3Europe Reintroduced Lockdowns Because Of Pressure On The Medical System Chart I-4Too Soon To Project A Peak In Cases   A Credible Extension Of The US Reflationary Bridge The ongoing pandemic underscores the need for fiscal and monetary policymakers to continue to provide a reflationary “bridge” until vaccination ends the threat to the health care system. Currently, health experts project that this is unlikely to occur before late spring or mid-year. Earlier this year, fiscal authorities around the world built a massive reflationary bridge to support household income while stay-at-home orders were in place. However, the effect of that stimulus has waned – at least for some income groups. In the US, Chart I-5 highlights that unemployment insurance payments have fallen by more than suggested by the decline in continuing jobless claims. Post-election surveys have suggested that a vast majority of Americans felt another economic assistance package was needed, with most reporting that it should occur before inauguration.1 Overall income remains higher than its pre-pandemic baseline (Chart I-6), but aggregate figures mask white collar/blue collar divergences. Many white-collar employees saw a substantial increase in their savings this year as their spending declined and income held up (due to their ability to work from home), whereas blue-collar and low-wage service workers found themselves dependent on government assistance. While the deployment of white-collar savings is likely to eventually support blue-collar and low-wage worker income, it is unlikely that this will occur while significant pandemic restrictions remain in place. Chart I-5The Stimulative Effect Of The CARES Act Has Waned Chart I-6Overall Income Is ''Normal'', But This Masks Large Differences Across The Income Spectrum   That reality motivated the COVID relief deal that is reportedly under discussion between US congressional negotiators. The deal – as described in the financial media as we go to press – likely excludes state & local support, but it also likely includes a new round of stimulus checks, some funding for unemployment insurance recipients, and cash for small businesses, health-care providers, and schools. The deal, which we expect to be passed over the course of the next week, is not perfect but it is a credible extension of the US fiscal bridge and it clarifies the path from the near-term growth outlook (which is negative), to the cyclical outlook (which is positive). Chart I-7State & Local Government Support Is Needed In The New Year The issue of state & local funding will be important to return to in the new year following Joe Biden’s inauguration. Persistent state & local government austerity following the global financial crisis acted as a significant drag on US economic growth (Chart I-7). Nonetheless, one-month delay to state & local government fiscal assistance is less problematic than a delay in extending unemployment insurance payments, given the pending expiry of the remaining CARES act unemployment programs on Dec. 26. Europe’s Bridge Is Shakier In Europe, the need for additional fiscal support is higher than in the US, given that activity contracted this quarter. While the December flash euro area services PMI showed surprising strength, this likely reflects the quick removal of restrictions that we noted may soon need to be reimposed. European economies responded very forcefully this year to the pandemic when all response measures are considered, but less so in many important economies when focusing only above-the-line measures – i.e., new spending and foregone government revenue – to the exclusion of equity injections, loans, and guarantees. Based on this metric, Chart I-8 shows that the UK and Germany have provided a response that is in line with the advanced economy average, whereas most other European countries have lagged. Chart I-9 highlights that this year’s economic rebound in Spain and Italy has been aided by Germany’s stronger fiscal response, as evidenced by intra-euro area trade balances. Chart I-8The Fiscal Response Of Many European Countries Has Lagged Chart I-9Germany's Fiscal Stimulus Supported The Euro Area's Recovery Funds from the European Recovery and Resilience Facility (“RRF”) have yet to be deployed and they will eventually act to support euro area economic activity. However, outlays from the fund next year are expected to be small. Given that this month’s ECB actions were aimed at simply maintaining easy financial conditions,2 European leaders will either need to provide additional fiscal support to their economies if the strain on the health care system does not soon relent, or economic activity will have to become increasingly dependent on external demand. China: Adding To Global Growth, For Now Chart I-10China Will Boost Euro Area Economic Activity Next Year Fortunately for Europe (and advanced economies more generally), the external demand outlook is bright – for now. Euro area exports to China are strongly predicted by China’s credit impulse lagged by 9 months, and are set to rise materially (Chart I-10). China’s aggressive – and comparatively early – response to the pandemic will thus contribute meaningfully to global growth in the first half of 2021, and could obviate the need for further European fiscal stimulus if restrictions there are not reinstituted. China is likely to provide a significantly smaller boost to global growth in the second half of next year, as policymakers have already begun to mop up excess liquidity. Chart I-11 highlights that China’s credit impulse has consistently followed a 3½-year cycle since 2010, and this year has been no different. This cycle is not exogenous or mystical; it has been caused by the repeated “oversteering” of activity by Chinese policymakers who frequently oscillate between the need to fight deflation and the strong desire to curb additional private-sector leveraging. The chart suggests that an inflection point in this cycle’s upswing has been reached, which is consistent with the view of BCA’s China strategists that the credit cycle has peaked. A peak in China’s credit impulse does not mean that China’s contribution to global growth is about to slow. Global industrial production continued to accelerate following a peak in China’s credit impulse for at least six months in the lead-up to the last two global economic slowdowns (Chart I-12). But the chart also shows that a slowdown in global activity did occur following China’s impulse peak in both cases, especially when the impulse fell below its average of 28½% of GDP. Chart I-11China's Credit Cycle Has Peaked, Right On Schedule Chart I-12DM Economies Continue To Grow Following A Peak In China's Credit Cycle   Our baseline view is that credit tightening in China will bring the impulse down to approximately 30% of GDP in 2021, which is still above its average of the past decade. This suggests that China will not contribute as much to global demand in the second half of the year, but will not be an actual drag. Still, the history of policy “oversteering” in China means that the risk of a policy overkill cannot be ruled out. Investors should closely watch for signs of increased hawkishness emanating from China’s National People’s Congress in March. Conclusions And Portfolio Recommendations Cyclically, as we highlighted in our 2021 Outlook, developed market (DM) economies are likely to experience above-trend growth, low inflation, and accommodative monetary policy next year. China’s economic cycle is running ahead of the DM world and Chinese growth will eventually moderate, but is still set to accelerate in the first half of the year. A likely extension of the reflationary bridge in the US coupled with strengthening Chinese demand meaningfully reduces the odds of a deflationary outcome over the next year, in the sense that consumers, businesses, and investors are much more likely to view any near-term lockdown-driven impacts on growth as necessarily temporary. This de-risks the path to a post-pandemic economy and increases our conviction in a cyclically-bullish stance towards risk assets. We continue to recommend that in 2021 global investors should: Favor stocks versus bonds; Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration; Position for corporate bond spread tightening; Favor commodities; and Expect a continued decline in the US dollar. Chart I-13US Equities Are Vulnerable To A Moderate Correction Over the very near-term, Chart I-13 shows that US equities are potentially vulnerable to a moderate tactical correction. US stocks are very richly valued, and investors may use signs of modest delays in the immunization campaign, a failure of the US Congress to provide support for state & local governments, or inadequate fiscal support in Europe as an excuse to sell. A moderate correction, on the order of 5-7%, is possible in the first quarter. The question for investors is whether the next significant episode of risk-off sentiment should be bought or sold. Given the ongoing impact of very easy monetary policy on equity multiples and the high likelihood of a significant earnings recovery, we are strongly inclined towards the former, barring any substantial shift in the timeline to mass vaccination. Equity returns will be lower in 2021 than in 2020, but are very likely to be positive and beat those offered by government securities. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 18, 2020 Next Report: January 28, 2021   II. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve, Future Inflation, And What To Do About It Many investors feel that the Phillips Curve has failed to predict weak inflation over the past decade. But this perception is due to a singular focus on the economic slack component of the modern-day version of the curve to the exclusion of inflation expectations, and a failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on those expectations. In addition, many investors tend to downplay the long-term balance sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. The COVID-19 pandemic was certainly a major economic shock. But for now, it seems like this was a sharp income statement recession, not a balance-sheet recession. This fact, along with lower odds of negative supply-side shocks and several structural factors, suggest that inflation will be higher over the next ten years than it has over the past decade. Investors looking to protect against potentially higher inflation should look primarily to commodities, cyclical stocks, and US farmland. Gold is likely to remain well supported over the coming few years, but rich valuation suggests the long-term outlook for the yellow metal is poor. A hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio has historically been strongly correlated with the price of gold, and may provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Introduction Chart II-1A Surge In Long-Dated Inflation Expectations The pandemic, and the corresponding fiscal and monetary response is challenging the low-inflation outlook of many market participants. Chart II-1 highlights that long-dated market-based inflation expectations have surged past their pre-COVID levels after collapsing to the lowest-ever level in March. The shift in thinking about inflation has partly been a response to an extraordinary rise in government spending in many countries. But Chart II-1 shows that long-dated expectations in the US were mostly trendless from April to June as Federal support was distributed, and instead rose sharply in July and August in the lead-up to the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. This new dawn for US monetary policy has been prompted not just by the pandemic, but also by the extended period of below-target inflation over the past decade. In this report, we review how the past ten-year episode of low inflation can be successfully explained through the lens of the expectations-augmented (i.e. “modern-day”) Phillips Curve. Many investors fail to fully appreciate the impact that inflation expectations have on driving actual inflation, as well as the cumulative impact of two major capital and savings misallocations over the past 25 years on the responsiveness of demand to interest rates and on the level of inflation expectations. Using the modern-day Phillips Curve as a guide, we present several reasons in favor of the view that inflation will be higher over the next decade than over the past ten years. Finally, we conclude with an assessment of several ways for investors to protect their portfolios from rising inflation. Revisiting The “Modern-Day” Phillips Curve The original Phillips Curve, as formulated by New Zealand economist William Phillips in the late 1950s, described a negative relationship between the unemployment rate and the pace of wage growth. Given the close correlation between wage and overall price growth at the time, the Phillips Curve was soon extended and generalized to describe an inverse relationship between labor market slack and overall price inflation. Chart II-2Rising Unemployment And Inflation Challenged The Original Phillips Curve However, the experience of rising inflation alongside high unemployment from the late 1960s to the late 1970s underscored that prices are also importantly determined by inflation expectations and shocks to the supply-side of the economy (Chart II-2). In the 1980s and 1990s, the Federal Reserve’s success at reigning in inflation was achieved not only by raising interest rates to punishingly high levels, but also by sharply altering consumer, business, and investor expectations about future prices. The experience of the late 1960s and 1970s led to a revised form of the Phillips Curve, dubbed the “expectations-augmented” or “modern” version. As an equation, the modern Phillips Curve is described today by Fed officials, in terms of core inflation, as follows: πct = β1πet + β2πct-1 + β3πct-2 - β4SLACKt + β5IMPt + εt where: πct = Core inflation today πet = Expectations of inflation πct-n = Lagged core inflation SLACKt = Slack in the economy IMPt = Imported goods prices εt = Other shocks to prices Described verbally, this framework suggests that “economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from its longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations.3” This framework can easily be extended to headline inflation by adding changes in food and energy prices. In most formal models of the economy in use today, the modern Phillips Curve is combined with the New Keynesian demand function to describe business cycles: Yt = Y*t – β(r-r*) + εt where: Yt = Real GDP Y*t = Real potential GDP r = The real interest rate r* = The neutral rate of interest εt = Other shocks to output This equation posits that differences in the real interest rate from its neutral level, along with idiosyncratic shocks to demand, cause real GDP to deviate from potential output. Abstracting from import prices and idiosyncratic shocks, these two equations tell a simple and intuitive story of how the economy generally works: The stance of monetary policy determines the output gap and, The output gap, along with inflation expectations, determine inflation. The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: The Pre-2000 Experience This above view of inflation and demand was strongly accepted by investors before the 2008 global financial crisis, but the decade-long period of generally below-target inflation has caused a crisis of faith in the idea of the Phillips Curve. Charts II-3 and II-4 show the historical record of the New Keynesian demand function and the modern-day Phillips Curve, using five-year averages of the data in question to smooth out the impact of short-term and idiosyncratic effects. We use nominal GDP growth as our long-run proxy for the neutral rate of interest,4 the US Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) estimate of potential GDP to determine the output gap, and a proprietary measure of inflation expectations based on an adaptive expectations framework5 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3With Just Two Exceptions, Monetary Policy Strongly Explained Demand Before 2000 Chart II-4Similarly, Pre-2000 The Output Gap Generally Explained Unexpected Inflation Chart II-3 shows that until 1999, the stance of monetary policy was highly predictive of the output gap over a five-year period, with just two exceptions where major structural forces were at play: the late 1970s, and the second half of the 1990s. In the case of the former, the disruptive effect of persistently high inflation negatively impacted output growth despite easy monetary policy, and in the latter case, economic activity was modestly stronger than what interest rates would have implied due to the beneficial impact of the technologically-driven productivity boom of that decade. Similarly, Chart II-4 shows that until 1999 there was a good relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations, again with the late 1970s and late 1990s as exceptions. Along with the beneficial supply-side effects of the disinflationary tech boom, persistent import price weakness (via dollar strength) seems to have also played a role in suppressing inflation in the late 1990s (Chart II-6). Chart II-5The Expectations Component Of The Modern Phillips Curve, Visualized Chart II-6A Strong Dollar Also Played A Role In Suppressing Inflation During The 1990s   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve Post-2000 Following 2000, deviations between the monetary policy stance, the output gap, and inflation become more prominent, particularly after 2008. As we will illustrate below, these deviations are more apparent on the demand side. In the case of inflation, the question should be why inflation was not even lower in the years immediately following the global financial crisis. On both the demand and inflation side, these deviations are explainable, and in a way that helps us determine future inflation. Charts II-7 and II-8 show the same series as in Charts II-3 and II-4, but focused on the post-2000 period. From 2000-2007, Chart II-8 shows that the relationship between the output gap and the deviation in inflation from expectations was not particularly anomalous. The output gap was negative from the end of the 2001 recession until the beginning of 2006, and inflation was correspondingly below expectations on average for the cycle. Chart II-7Post-2000, The Output Gap Decoupled From The Monetary Policy Stance Chart II-8Since The GFC, The Real Mystery Is Why Inflation Has Been So Strong   Chart II-7 shows that the anomaly during that cycle was in the relationship between the output gap and the stance of monetary policy. Monetary policy was the easiest it had been in two decades, yet the output gap was negative for several years following the recession. Larry Summers pointedly cited this divergence in his revival of the secular stagnation theory in November 2013, arguing that it was strong evidence that excess savings were depressing aggregate demand via a lower neutral rate of interest and that this effect pre-dated the financial crisis. Why was demand so weak during that period? Chart II-9 compares the annualized per capita growth in the expenditure components of GDP during the 2001-2007 expansion to the 1991-2001 period. The chart shows that all components of GDP were lower than during the 1991-2001 period, with investment – the most interest rate sensitive component of GDP – showing up as particularly weak. On the surface, this supports the idea of structural factors weighing heavily on the neutral rate, rendering monetary policy less easy than investors would otherwise expect. But Chart II-9 treats the 2001-2007 years as one period, ignoring what happened over the course of the expansion. Chart II-10 repeats the exercise shown in Chart II-9 from Q1 2001 to Q3 2005, and highlights that the annualized growth in per capita residential investment was much stronger than it was during the 1991-2001 period – and nonresidential fixed investment was much weaker. Spending on goods was roughly the same, which is impressive considering that the late 1990s experienced a productivity boom and robust wage growth. All the negative contribution to growth from residential investment during the 2001-2007 expansion came after Q3 2005, as the housing market bubble burst in response to rising interest rates. In short, Chart II-10 highlights that there was a strong relationship between easy monetary policy and the demand for housing, but that this was not true for the corporate sector. Chart II-9Looking At The Whole 2001-2007 Period, Investment Was Extremely Weak Chart II-10Housing Absolutely Responded To Easy Monetary Policy   Explaining Weak CAPEX Growth In The Early 2000s This leads us to ask why CAPEX was so weak during the 2001-2007 period. In addition to changes in interest rates, business investment is strongly influenced by expectations of consumer demand and corporate profitability. Chart II-11 shows that real nonresidential fixed investment and as-reported earnings moved in lockstep during the period, and that this delayed corporate-sector recovery also impacted the pace of hiring. Weak expectations for consumer spending do not appear to be the culprit. Chart II-12 highlights that while real personal consumption expenditure growth fell during the recession, spending did not contract (as it had done during the previous recession) and capital expenditures fell much more than what real PCE would have implied. Chart II-11Post-2001, Persistently Weak Profits Led To Weak Investment And Jobs Growth Chart II-12CAPEX Was Much Weaker In 2002 Than Justified By Consumer Spending   Instead, persistently weak CAPEX in the early 2000s appears to be best explained by the damaging impact of corporate excesses that built up during the dot-com bubble. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed in response to a series of corporate accounting frauds that came to light in the wake of the bubble, but in many cases had been occurring for several years. Chart II-13 highlights that widespread write-offs badly impacted earnings quality and the growth in the asset value of equipment and intellectual property products (IPP), both of which only began to improve again in early 2003. This occurred alongside an outright contraction in real investment in IPP as investors lost faith in company financial statements and heavily scrutinized corporate spending. Chart II-14highlights that a contraction in IP spending was a huge change from the double-digit pace of growth that occurred in the late 1990s. Chart II-13The Damaging Impact Of Corporate Excesses Chart II-14A Near-Unprecedented Collapse In IPP Investment Followed The Tech Bubble   In addition, corporate sector indebtedness also appears to have played a role in driving weak investment in the early 2000s. While the interest burden of nonfinancial corporate debt was not as high in 2000 as it was in the early 1990s, Chart II-15 highlights that debt to operating income surged in the late 1990s – which likely caused investors already skeptical about company financial statements to impose a period of elevated capital discipline on corporate managers following the recession. Chart II-16 shows that while the peak in the 12-month trailing corporate bond default rate in January 2002 was similar to that of the early 90s, it was meaningfully higher on average in the lead-up to and following the recession. Chart II-15The Late-1990s Saw A Major Increase In Corporate Debt Chart II-16Above-Average Corporate Defaults Before And After The 2001 Recession   To summarize, Charts II-10-16 underscore that management excesses, governance failures, and elevated debt in the corporate sector in the 1990s were the root cause of the seeming divergence between monetary policy and the output gap from 2001 to 2007. This was, unfortunately, the first of two major savings/capital misallocations that have occurred in the US over the past 25 years. Explaining The Post-GFC Experience In the early 2000s, the Federal Reserve was faced with a decision between two monetary policy paths: one that was appropriate for the corporate sector, and one that was appropriate for the household sector. The Fed chose the former, and it inadvertently contributed to the second major savings/capital misallocation to occur over the past 25 years: the enormous debt-driven bubble in US housing that culminated into the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2007-2009. Chart II-17It Is No Mystery Why Demand And Inflation Were Weak Last Cycle As a result, 2007 to 2013/2014 was a mirror image of the early 2000s. Unlike previous post-war downturns, the GFC precipitated a balance-sheet recession that deeply affected homeowners and the financial system. This lasting damage led to a multi-year household deleveraging process, which substantially lowered the responsiveness of the economy to stimulative monetary policy. On a year-over-year basis, Chart II-17 shows that total nominal household mortgage credit growth was continuously negative for six and a half years, from Q4 2008 until Q2 2015, underscoring that the large divergence during this period between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap should not, in any way, be surprising to investors. And this is even before accounting for the negative impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis and double-dip recession, or the persistent fiscal drag in nearly every advanced economy last cycle. What is surprising about the post-GFC experience is that inflation was not substantially weaker than it was, which is ironic considering that the secular stagnation narrative was revived to help explain below-target inflation. Chart II-8 showed that actual inflation steadily improved versus expected inflation alongside the closing of the output gap and the decline in the unemployment rate, but that it was much stronger than the output gap would have implied – particularly during the early phase of the economic recovery. It is still an open question as to why this occurred. A weak dollar and a strong recovery in oil prices likely helped support consumer prices, but we doubt that these two factors alone explain the discrepancy. A more credible answer is that expectations stayed very well anchored due to the Fed’s strong record of maintaining low and stable inflation (thus preventing a disinflationary spiral). In addition, the fact that the Fed actively communicated to the public during the early recovery years that a large part of its objective was to prevent deflation may have helped support prices. For example, in a CBS interview following the Fed’s November 2010 decision to engage in a second round of quantitative easing (“QE2”), then-Chair Bernanke prominently tied the decision to the fact that “inflation is very, very low.” When asked whether additional rounds of easing might be required, Bernanke responded that it was “certainly possible” and again cited inflation as a core consideration. Chart II-18Rising US Oil Production Caused The Massive 2014 Oil Price Shock While inflation did not ultimately fall relative to expectations post-GFC as much as the output gap would have implied, the long-lasting weakness in demand left expectations vulnerable to exogenous shocks. In 2014, such a shock occurred: oil prices collapsed almost exactly at the point that US tight oil production crossed the four-million-barrels-per-day mark (Chart II-18), a level of output that many experts had previously believed would not be attainable (or would roughly mark the peak in production). We view this event as a truly exogenous shock to prices, given that research & development of shale technology had been ongoing since the late 1970s and only happened to finally gain traction around 2010. Chart II-19 shows that the 2014 oil price collapse caused a clear break lower in our measure of inflation expectations, to the lowest value recorded since the 1940s. This break also occurred in market-based expectations of inflation, such as long-dated CPI swap rates and TIPS breakeven inflation rates, and surveys of consumer inflation expectations (Chart II-20). This decline in inflation expectations meant that the output gap needed to be above zero in order for the Fed to hit its 2% target (absent any upwards shock to prices), and that the meaningful acceleration of inflation from 2016 to 2018 should actually be viewed as inflation “outperformance” because its long-term trend had been lowered by the earlier downward shift in expectations. Chart II-19The 2014 Oil Price Shock Collapsed Inflation Expectations... Chart II-20...No Matter What Inflation Expectations Measure Is Used   The Modern-Day Phillips Curve: Key Takeaways Based on the evidence presented above, we see the perceived “failure” of the Phillips Curve to predict weak inflation over the past decade as being due to: A singular focus on the output gap/slack component of the modern Phillips Curve, to the exclusion of expectations A failure to fully consider the lasting impact of sustained periods of a negative output gap on expectations Downplaying the long-term balance-sheet impact of two episodes of excesses and savings/capital misallocations on the relationship between the stance of monetary policy and the output gap, via a persistently negative shock to aggregate demand and a reduced sensitivity of economic activity to interest rates. One crucial takeaway from the modern-day Phillips Curve equation presented above is that if inflation expectations are largely formed based on the experience of past inflation, then inflation is ultimately determined by three dimensions of the output gap: whether it is rising or falling, whether it is above or below zero, and how long it has been above or below zero. The extended period of below-potential output over the past two decades, accelerated recently by a major negative shock to energy prices, has now lowered inflation expectations to a point that merely reaching the Fed’s target constitutes inflation “outperformance.” This realization, made even more urgent by the COVID-19 pandemic, has strongly motivated the Fed’s official shift to an average inflation targeting regime. That shift does not suggest that the Fed is moving away from the modern-day Phillips Curve framework; rather, the Fed’s new policy is aimed at closing the output gap as quickly as possible in order to prevent a renewed decline in inflation expectations (and thus inflation itself) from another long period of activity running below its potential. The Outlook For Inflation While the Fed has shifted its policy to prefer higher inflation, that does not necessarily mean it will get it. Why is it likely to happen this time, if the last economic cycle featured such a large divergence between monetary policy and the output gap? Chart II-21Above-Target Inflation Is Not Imminent First, to clarify, we do not believe that above-target inflation is imminent. The COVID-19 pandemic was an extreme event, and even given the very substantial recovery in the labor market, the unemployment rate remains almost 2½ percentage points above the Congressional Budget long-run estimate of NAIRU (Chart II-21). But based on our analysis of the modern-day Phillips Curve presented above, there are at least four main reasons to expect that inflation may be higher on average over the next ten years than over the past decade. Reason #1: This Appears To Be A Sharp Income Statement Recession, Not A Balance-Sheet Recession We highlighted above the importance of savings/capital misallocations in driving a gap between monetary policy and the output gap over the past two decades, but this recession was obviously not sparked by such an event. The onset of the pandemic came following a long period of US household sector deleveraging which, while painful, helped restore consumer balance sheets. Chart II-22 highlights that household debt to disposable income had fallen back to 2001 levels at the onset of the pandemic, and the interest burden of debt servicing had fallen to a 40-year low. From a wealth perspective, Chart II-23 highlights that total household liabilities to net worth have fallen below where they were at the peak of the housing market boom in 2005 for almost all income groups, and that a decline in leverage has been particularly noteworthy for the lowest income group since mid-2016. Chart II-22Households Have Repaired Their Balance Sheets... Chart II-23...Across Almost All Income Brackets   Total credit to the nonfinancial corporate sector rose significantly relative to GDP over the course of the last cycle, but subpar growth in real nonresidential fixed investment and a rise in share buybacks highlight that this debt went largely to fund changes in capital structure rather than increased productive capacity. Chart II-24 highlights that corporate sector interest payments as a percentage of operating income are low relative to history, and they do not seem to be necessarily dependent on extremely low government bond yields.6 Finally, the corporate bond default rate may have already peaked (Chart II-25) and the percentage of jobs permanently lost looks more like 2001 than 2007 (Chart II-26), signaling that a prolonged balance-sheet recession is unlikely. Chart II-24Corporate Sector Debt Is Currently High, But Affordable Chart II-25Corporate Defaults Have Already Peaked Chart II-26So Far, Permanent Job Losses Look Like The 2001 Recession, Not 2007/2008 The bottom line is that while the pandemic has not yet been resolved and that major and permanent economic damage cannot be ruled out, the absence of “balance-sheet dynamics” is likely to eventually lead to a stronger responsiveness of demand for goods and services to what is set to be an extraordinarily easy monetary policy stance for at least another two years. Reason #2: The Fed May Be Able To Jawbone Inflation Higher The Fed’s public commitment to set interest rates in a way that will generate moderately above-target inflation is highly reminiscent of its defense of quantitative easing in the early phase of the last economic expansion, and (in the opposite fashion) of Paul Volker’s campaign in the 1980s against the “self-fulfilling prophecy” of inflation. From 2008-2014, the Fed explicitly linked the odds of future bond buying to the pace of actual inflation in its public statements. On its own, this was not enough to cause inflation to rise, but we highlighted above that it may have contributed to the fact that inflation expectations did not collapse. Chart II-1 on page 12 showed that long-dated market-based expectations for inflation have already been impacted by the Fed’s regime shift, suggesting decent odds that Fed policy will contribute to self-fulfilling price increases if the US economy does indeed avoid “balance-sheet dynamics” as a result of the pandemic. Reason #3: The Odds Of Negative Supply Shocks Are Lower Than In The Past We noted above the impact that energy price shocks and large typically exchange-rate driven changes in import prices can have on inflation, with the 2014 oil price collapse serving as the most vivid recent example. On both fronts, a value perspective suggests that the odds of negative shocks to inflation over the coming few years from oil and the dollar are lower than they have been in the past. Chart II-27 shows that the cost of global energy consumption as a share of GDP has fallen below its median since 1970, and Chart II-28 highlights that the US dollar is comparatively expensive relative to other currencies – which raises the bar for further gains. Stable-to-higher oil prices alongside a flat-to-weak dollar implies reflationary rather than disinflationary pressure. Chart II-27Massive, Downward Shocks To Oil Prices Are Now Less Likely Chart II-28Valuation Favors A Declining Dollar, Which Is Inflationary   Reason #4: Structural Factors In addition to the cyclical arguments noted above, my colleague Peter Berezin, BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, has also highlighted several structural arguments in favor of higher inflation. Chart II-29 highlights that the world support ratio, calculated as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers, peaked early last decade after rising for nearly 40 years. This suggests that output will fall relative to spending the coming several years, which should have the effect of boosting prices. Chart II-30 also highlights that globalization is on the back foot, with the ratio of trade-to-output having moved sideways for more than a decade. Since the early 1990s, rising global trade intensity has corresponded with very low goods prices in many countries, and the end of this trend reduces the impact of a factor that has been weighing on consumer prices globally over the past two decades. Chart II-29Less Production Relative To Consumption Is Inflationary Chart II-30Trade Is Not Suppressing Prices As Much As It Used To   Positioning For Eventually Higher Inflation Below we present an assessment of several potential candidates across the major asset classes that investors can use to protect their portfolios from rising inflation once it emerges. We conclude with a new trade idea that may provide investors with inflation protection at a better valuation profile than more traditional inflation hedges. Fixed-Income Within fixed-income, inflation-linked bonds and derivatives (such as CPI swaps) are the obvious choice for investors seeking inflation protection. Inflation-linked bonds are much better played relative to nominal equivalents, as inflation expectations make up the difference between nominal and inflation-linked yields. But Table II-1 shows that 5-10 year TIPS are also likely to provide positive absolute returns over the coming year even in a scenario where 10-year Treasury yields are rising, so long as real yields do not account for the vast majority of the increase. Barring a major and positive change in the long-term economic outlook over the coming year, our sense is that the Fed would act to cap any outsized increase in real yields and that TIPS remain an attractive long-only option until the Fed becomes sufficiently comfortable with the inflation outlook. Table II-1TIPS Will Earn Positive Absolute Returns Next Year Barring A Surge In Real Yields Commodities Commodities are arguably the most traditional inflation hedge, and are likely to provide investors with superior risk-adjusted returns in an environment where inflation expectations are rising. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service is positive on gold, and recently argued that Brent crude prices are likely to average between $65-$70/barrel between 2021-2025.7 Chart II-31Gold Is Expensive And Long-Term Returns May Be Poor One caveat about gold is that, unlike oil prices, it appears to be quite expensive relative to its history. Since gold does not provide investors with a cash flow, over time real (or inflation-adjusted) prices should ultimately be mean-reverting unless real production costs steadily trend higher. Chart II-31 highlights that the real price of gold is already sky-high and well above its historical average. Over a ten-year time horizon, gold prices fell meaningfully following the last two occasions where real gold prices reached current levels, suggesting that the long-term outlook for gold returns is poor. However, over the coming few years, gold prices are likely to remain well supported given our economic outlook, the Fed’s new monetary policy regime, and the consistently negative correlation between real yields and the US dollar and gold prices. As such, we would recommend gold as a hedge against the fear of inflation, which is likely to increase over the cyclical horizon. Equities We provide two perspectives on how equity investors may be able to protect themselves against rising inflation. The first is simply to favor cyclical versus defensive sectors. The former is likely to continue to benefit next year in response to a strengthening economy as COVID-19 vaccines are progressively distributed, and historically cyclical sectors have tended to outperform during periods of rising inflation. In addition, my colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, BCA’s Equity Strategist, presented Table II-2 in a June Special Report,8 and it highlights that cyclical sectors (plus health care) have enjoyed positive relative returns on average during periods of rising inflation. Table II-2S&P 500 Sector Performance During Inflationary Periods The second strategy is to favor companies that are more likely to successfully pass on increasing prices to their customers (i.e., firms with “pricing power”). Pricing power is a difficult attribute to identify, but one possible approach is to select industries that have experienced above-average sales per share growth over the past decade. While it is true that the past ten years have seen low rather than high inflation, it has also seen firms in general struggle to achieve robust top-line growth. Industries that have succeeded in this environment may thus be able to pass on higher costs to their customers without disproportionately suffering from lower sales. Chart II-32Last Decade's Revenue Winners: Potential Pricing Power Candidates Chart II-32 presents the historical relative performance of these industries in the US plus the materials and energy sector, equally-weighted and compared to an equally-weighted industry group portfolio (level 2 GICS). The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed steadily over the past decade, although admittedly at a slower pace since 2018. An interesting feature of this approach is that, in addition to including industries within the industrials, consumer discretionary, and health care sectors (along with the food & staples retailing component of the consumer staples sector), tech stocks show up prominently due to their outstanding revenue performance over the past decade. Table II-2 above highlighted that tech stocks have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation, although it is unclear whether this is due to increasing prices or expectations of rising interest rates. Tech stocks are typically long-duration assets, meaning that they are very sensitive to the discount rate, but the Fed’s new monetary policy regime all but guarantees that investors will see a gap between inflation and rates for a time. It is thus an open question how tech stocks would perform in the future in response to rising inflation, and we plan to revisit this topic in a future report. Chart II-33Owners Of Existing Infrastructure Assets Are Primarily Utilities And Telecom Companies As a final point within the stock market, we would caution against equity portfolios favoring companies that are owners or operators of infrastructure assets. While increased infrastructure spending may indeed occur in the US over the coming several years, indexes focused on companies with sizeable existing infrastructure assets tend to be highly concentrated in the utilities and telecommunications sectors. Chart II-33 shows that the relative performance of the MSCI ACWI Infrastructure Index is nearly identical to that of a 50/50 utilities/telecom services portfolio, two sectors that are defensive rather than pro-cyclical and that have historically performed poorly during periods of rising inflation. Direct Real Estate Alongside commodities, direct real estate investment is also typically viewed as a traditional inflation hedge. For now, however, the outlook for important segments of the commercial real estate market is sufficiently cloudy that it is difficult to form a high conviction view in favor of the asset class. CMBS delinquency rates on office properties have remained low during the pandemic, but those of retail and accommodation have soared and the long-term outlook for all three may have permanently shifted due to the impact of the pandemic. By contrast, industrial and medical properties are likely to do well, with the former likely to be increasingly negatively correlated with the performance of retail properties in the coming few years (i.e., “warehouses versus malls”). I noted my colleague Peter Berezin’s structural arguments for inflation above, and Peter has also highlighted farmland as a real asset that is likely to do well in an environment of rising inflation.9 Chart II-34 further supports the argument: the chart shows that despite a significant increase in real farm real estate values over the past 20 years, returns to operators as a % of farmland values are not unattractive. In addition, USDA forecasts for 2020 suggest that operator returns will be the highest in a decade relative to current 10-year Treasury yields, underscoring both the capital appreciation and relative yield potential of US farmland. A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Inflation-Hedged Portfolio Finally, as we highlighted in Section 1, in a world of extremely low government bond yields, global ex-US investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against deflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by employing the US dollar as a diversifying asset. The dollar is consistently negatively correlated with global stock prices, and this relationship tends to strengthen during crisis periods. The flip side is that US-based investors have the advantage of being able to hedge against inflationary risks in a long-only portfolio by buying global currencies. Chart II-35 presents a 50/50 portfolio of US TIPS and an equally-weighted basket of six major DM currencies against the US dollar. The chart highlights that the portfolio is strongly positively correlated with gold prices, but with a better valuation profile. We already showed in Chart II-28 on page 28 that global currencies are undervalued versus the US dollar. TIPS valuation is not as attractive given that real yields are at record low levels, but the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sits at its 40th percentile historically (and thus has room to move higher). Chart II-34Farmland: Protection Again Inflation, At A Decent Yield Chart II-35A Hybrid TIPS/Currency Portfolio: Liquid, And Cheaper Than Gold   As such, while gold prices are likely to remain supported over the cyclical horizon, a hybrid TIPS/currency portfolio may also provide investors with long-term protection against inflation – at a better price. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts Among BCA’s equity indicators, the monetary indicator continues to fall but it remains very elevated relative to its history. This underscores that monetary policy remains extremely accommodative and will continue to support stock prices. By contrast, our technical, valuation, and speculative indicators have become quite elevated. This would normally be a very concerning profile, but an improvement in sentiment is warranted in response to the positive vaccine news over the past month. Valuation remains a source of concern, but value is not an effective market timing tool. Extended valuation ratios point more to low average returns over a multi-year time horizon than a major equity market selloff next year. Equity earnings are likely to improve meaningfully in 2021, but much of this improvement is already priced in. Over the coming 12 months, bottom-up analysts expect S&P 500 EPS to grow 20% to a point that modestly surpasses their pre-pandemic peak. Earnings growth that is merely in line with these expectations is likely to produce mid-single digit returns from stocks. Globally, the most significant regional equity trend is that the US is beginning to underperform the rest of the world. The relative performance of US versus global stocks has broken below its 200-day moving average, and sector weights suggest that euro area stocks are likely to be the biggest beneficiary within global ex-US if the trend in growth versus value follows that of the US versus global. Within the currency space, the US dollar remains quite oversold. But USD is a reliably counter-cyclical currency, and it has only modestly undershot what would be implied by the rally in global stock prices this year. The euro and commodity currencies have been especially strong versus the dollar over the past month, and may be due for a consolidation. Our composite technical indicator for commodities is the most overbought that it has been since 2011. Industrial metals and lumber appear to be at the greatest risk of a technical selloff, as gold’s correction may have already run its course. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend. A peak in our global LEI (GLEI) diffusion index suggests that the pace of advance in the GLEI will moderate, but the diffusion index has not yet fallen to a level that would herald a meaningful decline in the LEI. US labor market momentum is waning, although payroll growth remained positive in November. A massive rise in the savings rate means that savings will eventually support spending, but this is unlikely to significantly occur while pandemic restrictions remain in place. Given this, fiscal and monetary policymakers need to continue to provide a reflationary “bridge” until vaccination ends the threat to the health care system and allows a return to more normal economic conditions. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see Daily Insights "Americans Want Another Deal, Pronto!" dated November 30, 2020, available at di.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Daily Insights "The ECB: Looser For Longer," dated December 10, 2020, available at di.bcaresearch.com. 3 “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” Janet Yellen, Speech at the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, September 24, 2015. 4 The use of nominal GDP growth as our proxy for the neutral rate of interest is based on the idea that borrowing costs are stimulative if they are below that of income growth. 5 An adaptive expectations framework suggests that expectations for future inflation are largely determined by what has occurred in the past. Our proxy for inflation expectations is thus calculated using simple exponential smoothing of the actual PCE deflator, which provides us with a long and consistent time series for expectations. 6 The second debt service ratio shown in Chart II-24 would only rise to its 68th historical percentile if the 10-year Treasury yield were to rise to 3%, or the 75th with a 10-year yield at 4%. This would be elevated relative to history, but not extreme. 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Report “BCA’s 2021-25 Brent Forecast: $65-$70/bbl,” dated November 12, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report “Revisiting Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs,” dated June 1, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Will There Be A Fiscal Hangover?” dated May 29, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com

Highlights With a vaccine already rolling out in the UK and soon in the US, investors have reason to be optimistic about next year. Government bond yields are rising, cyclical equities are outperforming defensives, international stocks hinting at outperforming American, and value stocks are starting to beat growth stocks (Chart 1). Feature President Trump’s defeat in the US election also reduces the risk of a global trade war, or a real war with Iran. European, Chinese, and Emirati stocks have rallied since the election, at least partly due to the reduction in these risks (Chart 2). However, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have been rising on a secular, not just cyclical, basis (Chart 3). Geopolitical tensions have escalated with each crisis since the financial meltdown of 2008. Chart 1A New Global Business Cycle Chart 2Biden: No Trade War Or War With Iran? Chart 3Geopolitical Risk And Global Policy Uncertainty Chart 4The Decline Of The Liberal Democracies? Trump was a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the world. The cause is the relative decline of the liberal democracies in political, economic, and military strength relative to that of other global players (Chart 4). This relative decline has emboldened Chinese and Russian challenges to the US-led global order, as well as aggressive and unpredictable moves by middle and small powers. Moreover the aftershocks of the pandemic and recession will create social and political instability in various parts of the world, particularly emerging markets (Chart 5). Chart 5EM Troubles Await Chart 6Global Arms Build-Up Continues   We are bullish on risk assets next year, but our view is driven largely from the birth of a new economic cycle, not from geopolitics. Geopolitical risk is rapidly becoming underrated, judging by the steep drop-off in measured risk. There is no going back to a pre-Trump, pre-Xi Jinping, pre-2008, pre-Putin, pre-9/11, pre-historical golden age in which nations were enlightened, benign, and focused exclusively on peace and prosperity. Hard data, such as military spending, show the world moving in the opposite direction (Chart 6). So while stock markets will grind higher next year, investors should not expect that Biden and the vaccine truly portend a “return to normalcy.” Key View #1: China’s Communist Party Turns 100, With Rising Headwinds Investors should ignore the hype about the Chinese Communist Party’s one hundredth birthday in 2021. Since 1997, the Chinese leadership has laid great emphasis on this “first centenary” as an occasion by which China should become a moderately prosperous society. This has been achieved. China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Chart 7China: Less Money, More Problems The big day, July 1, will be celebrated with a speech by General Secretary Xi Jinping in which he reiterates the development goals of the five-year plan. This plan – which doubles down on import substitution and the aggressive tech acquisition campaign – will be finalized in March, along with Xi’s yet-to-be released vision for 2035, which marks the halfway point to the “second centenary,” 2049, the hundredth birthday of the regime. Xi’s 2035 goals may contain some surprises but the Communist Party’s policy frameworks should be seen as “best laid plans” that are likely to be overturned by economic and geopolitical realities. It was easier for the country to meet its political development targets during the period of rapid industrialization from 1979-2008. Now China is deep into a structural economic transition that holds out a much more difficult economic, social, and political future. Potential growth is slowing with the graying of society and the country is making a frantic dash, primarily through technology acquisition, to boost productivity and keep from falling into the “middle income trap” (Chart 7). Total debt levels have surged as Beijing attempts to make this transition smoothly, without upsetting social stability. Households and the government are taking on a greater debt load to maintain aggregate demand while the government tries to force the corporate sector to deleverage in fits and starts (Chart 8). The deleveraging process is painful and coincides with a structural transition away from export-led manufacturing. Beijing likely believes it has already led de-industrialization proceed too quickly, given the huge long-term political risks of this process, as witnessed in the US and UK. The fourteenth five-year plan hints that the authorities will give manufacturing a reprieve from structural reform efforts (Chart 9). Chart 8China Struggles To Dismount Debt Bubble Chart 9China Will Slow De-Industrialization, Stoking Protectionism Chart 10China Already Reining In Stimulus A premature resumption of deleveraging heightens domestic economic risks. The trade war and then the pandemic forced the Xi administration to abandon its structural reform plans temporarily and drastically ease monetary, fiscal, and credit policy to prevent a recession. Almost immediately the danger of asset bubbles reared its head again. Because the regime is focused on containing systemic financial risk, it has already begun tightening monetary policy as the nation heads into 2021 – even though the rest of the world has not fully recovered from the pandemic (Chart 10). The risk of over-tightening is likely to be contained, since Beijing has no interest in undermining its own recovery. But the risk is understated in financial markets at the moment and, combined with American fiscal risks due to gridlock, this familiar Chinese policy tug-of-war poses a clear risk to the global recovery and emerging market assets next year. Far more important than the first centenary, or even General Secretary Xi’s 2035 vision, is the impending leadership rotation in 2022. Xi was originally supposed to step down at this time – instead he is likely to take on the title of party chairman, like Mao, and aims to stay in power till 2035 or thereabouts. He will consolidate power once again through a range of crackdowns – on political rivals and corruption, on high-flying tech and financial companies, on outdated high-polluting industries, and on ideological dissenters. Beijing must have a stable economy going into its five-year national party congresses, and 2022 is no different. But that goal has largely been achieved through this year’s massive stimulus and the discovery of a global vaccine. In a risk-on environment, the need for economic stability poses a downside risk for financial assets since it implies macro-prudential actions to curb bubbles. The 2017 party congress revealed that Xi sees policy tightening as a key part of his policy agenda and power consolidation. In short, the critical twentieth congress in 2022 offers no promise of plentiful monetary and credit stimulus (Chart 11). All investors can count on is the minimum required for stability. This is positive for emerging markets at the moment, but less so as the lagged effects of this year’s stimulus dissipate. Chart 11No Promise Of Major New Stimulus For Party Congress 2022 Not only will Chinese domestic policy uncertainty remain underestimated, but geopolitical risk will also do so. Superficially, Beijing had a banner year in 2020. It handled the coronavirus better than other countries, especially the US, thus advertising Xi Jinping’s centralized and statist governance model. President Trump lost the election. Regardless of why Trump lost, his trade war precipitated a manufacturing slowdown that hit the Rust Belt in 2019, before the virus, and his loss will warn future presidents against assaulting China’s economy head-on, at least in their first term. All of this is worth gold in Chinese domestic politics. Chart 12China’s Image Suffered In Spite Of Trump Internationally, however, China’s image has collapsed – and this is in spite of Trump’s erratic and belligerent behavior, which alienated most of the world and the US’s allies (Chart 12). Moreover, despite being the origin of COVID-19, China’s is one of the few economies that thrived this year. Its global manufacturing share rose. While delaying and denying transparency regarding the virus, China accused other countries of originating the virus, and unleashed a virulent “wolf warrior” diplomacy, a military standoff with India, and a trade war with Australia. The rest of Asia will be increasingly willing to take calculated risks to counterbalance China’s growing regional clout, and international protectionist headwinds will persist. The United States will play a leading part in this process. Sino-American strategic tensions have grown relentlessly for more than a decade, especially since Xi Jinping rose to power, as is evident from Chinese treasury holdings (Chart 13). The Biden administration will naturally seek a diplomatic “reset” and a new strategic and economic dialogue with China. But Biden has already indicated that he intends to insist on China’s commitments under Trump’s “phase one” trade deal. He says he will keep Trump’s sweeping Section 301 tariffs in place, presumably until China demonstrates improvement on the intellectual property and tech transfer practices that provided the rationale for the tariffs. Biden’s victory in the Rust Belt ensures that he cannot revert to the pre-Trump status quo. Indeed Biden amplifies the US strategic challenge to China’s rise because he is much more likely to assemble a “grand alliance” or “coalition of the willing” focused on constraining China’s illiberal and mercantilist policies. Even the combined economic might of a western coalition is not enough to force China to abandon its statist development model, but it would make negotiations more likely to be successful on the West’s more limited and transactional demands (Chart 14). Chart 13The US-China Divorce Pre-Dates And Post-Dates Trump Chart 14Biden's Grand Alliance A Danger To China The Taiwan Strait is ground zero for US-China geopolitical tensions. The US is reviving its right to arm Taiwan for the sake of its self-defense, but the US commitment is questionable at best – and it is this very uncertainty that makes a miscalculation more likely and hence conflict a major tail risk (Chart 15). True, Beijing has enormous economic leverage over Taiwan, and it is fresh off a triumph of imposing its will over Hong Kong, which vindicates playing the long game rather than taking any preemptive military actions that could prove disastrous. Nevertheless, Xi Jinping’s reassertion of Beijing and communism is driving Taiwanese popular opinion away from the mainland, resulting in a polarizing dynamic that will be extremely difficult to bridge (Chart 16). If China comes to believe that the Biden administration is pursuing a technological blockade just as rapidly and resolutely as the Trump administration, then it could conclude that Taiwan should be brought to heel sooner rather than later. Chart 15US Boosts Arms Sales To Taiwan Chart 16Taiwan Strait Risk Will Explode If Biden Seeks Tech Blockade Bottom Line: On a secular basis, China faces rising domestic economic risks and rising geopolitical risk. Given the rally in Chinese currency and equities in 2021, the downside risk is greater than the upside risk of any fleeting “diplomatic reset” with the United States. Emerging markets will benefit from China’s stimulus this year but will suffer from its policy tightening over time. Key View #2: The US “Pivot To Asia” Is Back On … And Runs Through Iran Most likely President-elect Biden will face gridlock at home. His domestic agenda largely frustrated, he will focus on foreign policy. Given his old age, he may also be a one-term president, which reinforces the need to focus on the achievable. He will aim to restore the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the chief features of which were the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and the “Pivot to Asia.” The US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. The purpose of the Iranian deal was to limit Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions, stabilize Iraq, create a semblance of regional balance, and thus enable American military withdrawal. The US could have simply abandoned the region, but Iran’s ensuing supremacy would have destabilized the region and quickly sucked the US back in. The newly energy independent US needed a durable deal. Then it could turn its attention to Asia Pacific, where it needed to rebuild its strategic influence in the face of a challenger that made Iran look like a joke (Chart 17). Chart 17The "Pivot To Asia" In A Nutshell It is possible for Biden to revive the Iranian deal, given that the other five members of the agreement have kept it afloat during the Trump years. Moreover, since it was always an executive deal that lacked Senate approval, Biden can rejoin unilaterally. However, the deal largely expires in 2025 – and the Trump administration accurately criticized the deal’s failure to contain Iran’s missile development and regional ambitions. Therefore Biden is proposing a renegotiation. This could lead to an even greater US-Iran engagement, but it is not clear that a robust new deal is feasible. Iran can also recommit to the old deal, having taken only incremental steps to violate the deal after the US’s departure – manifestly as leverage for future negotiations. Of course, the Iranians are not likely to give up their nuclear program in the long run, as nuclear weapons are the golden ticket to regime survival. Libya gave up its nuclear program and was toppled by NATO; North Korea developed its program into deliverable nuclear weapons and saw an increase in stature. Iran will continue to maintain a nuclear program that someday could be weaponized. Nevertheless, Tehran will be inclined to deal with Biden. President Hassan Rouhani is a lame duck, his legacy in tatters due to Trump, but his final act in office could be to salvage his legacy (and his faction’s hopes) by overseeing a return to the agreement prior to Iran’s presidential election in June. From Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s point of view, this would be beneficial. He also needs to secure his legacy, but as he tries to lay the groundwork for his power succession, Iran faces economic collapse, widespread social unrest, and a potentially explosive division between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the more pragmatic political faction hoping for economic opening and reform. Iran needs a reprieve from US maximum pressure, so Khamenei will ultimately rejoin a limited nuclear agreement if it enables the regime to live to fight another day. In short, the US is limited by the need to pivot to Asia, while Iran is limited by the risk of regime failure. A deal should be agreed. But this is precisely why conflict could erupt in 2021. First, either in Trump’s final days in office or in the early days of the Biden administration, Israel could take military action – as it has likely done several times this year already – to set back the Iranian nuclear program and try to reinforce its own long-term security. Second, the Biden administration could decide to utilize the immense leverage that President Trump has bequeathed, resulting in a surprisingly confrontational stance that would push Iran to the brink. This is unlikely but it may be necessary due to the following point. Third, China and Russia could refuse to cooperate with the US, eliminating the prospect of a robust renegotiation of the deal, and forcing Biden to choose between accepting the shabby old deal or adopting something similar to Trump’s maximum pressure. China will probably cooperate; Russia is far less certain. Beijing knows that the US intention in Iran is to free up strategic resources to revive the US position in Asia, but it has offered limited cooperation on Iran and North Korea because it does not have an interest in their acquiring nuclear weapons and it needs to mitigate US hostility. Biden has a much stronger political mandate to confront China than he does to confront Iran. Assuming that the Israelis and Saudis can no more prevent Biden’s détente with Iran than they could Obama’s, the next question will be whether Biden effectively shifts from a restored Iranian deal to shoring up these allies and partners. He can possibly build on the Abraham Accords negotiated by the Trump administration smooth Israeli ties with the Arab world. The Middle East could conceivably see a semblance of balance. But not in 2021. The coming year will be the rocky transition phase in which the US-Iran détente succeeds or fails. Chart 18Oil Market Share War Preceded The Last US-Iran Deal Chart 19Still, Base Case Is For Rising Oil Prices Chart 20Biden Needs A Credible Threat The lead-up to the 2015 Iranian deal saw a huge collapse in global oil prices due to a market share war with Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US triggered by US shale production and Iranian sanctions relief (Chart 18). This was despite rising global demand and the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2021, global demand will also be reviving and Iraq, though not in the midst of full-scale war, is still unstable. OPEC 2.0 could buckle once again, though Moscow and Riyadh already confirmed this year that they understand the devastating consequences of not cooperating on production discipline. Our Commodity and Energy Strategy projects that the cartel will continue to operate, thus drawing down inventories (Chart 19). The US and/or Israel will have to establish a credible military threat to ensure that Iran is in check, and that will create fireworks and geopolitical risks first before it produces any Middle Eastern balance (Chart 20). Bottom Line: The US and Iran are both driven to revive the 2015 nuclear deal by strategic needs. Whether a better deal can be negotiated is less likely. The return to US-Iran détente is a source of geopolitical risk in 2021 though it should ultimately succeed. The lower risk of full-scale war is negative for global oil prices but OPEC 2.0 cartel behavior will be the key determiner. The cartel flirted with disaster in 2020 and will most likely hang together in 2021 for the sake of its members’ domestic stability. Key View #3: Europe Wins The US Election Chart 21Europe Won The US Election The European Union has not seen as monumental of a challenge from anti-establishment politicians over the past decade as have Britain and America. The establishment has doubled down on integration and solidarity. Now Europe is the big winner of the US election. Brussels and Berlin no longer face a tariff onslaught from Trump, a US-instigated global trade war, or as high of a risk of a major war in the Middle East. Biden’s first order of business will be reviving the trans-Atlantic alliance. Financial markets recognize that Europe is the winner and the euro has finally taken off against the dollar over the past year. European industrials and small caps outperformed during the trade war as well as COVID-19, a bullish signal (Chart 21). Reinforcing this trend is the fact that China is looking to court Europe and reduce momentum for an anti-China coalition. The center of gravity in Europe is Germany and 2021 faces a major transition in German politics. Chancellor Angela Merkel will step down at long last. Her Christian Democratic Union is favored to retain power after receiving a much-needed boost for its handling of this year’s crisis (Chart 22), although the risk of an upset and change of ruling party is much greater than consensus holds. Chart 22German Election Poses Political Risk, Not Investment Risk However, from an investment point of view, an upset in the German election is not very concerning. A left-wing coalition would take power that would merely reinforce the shift toward more dovish fiscal policy and European solidarity. Either way Germany will affirm what France affirmed in 2017, and what France is on track to reaffirm in 2022: that the European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. The European project is intact, despite Brexit, and evolving to address various challenges. This is not to say that European elections pose no risk. In fact, there will be upsets as a result of this year’s crisis and the troubled aftermath. The countries with upcoming elections – or likely snap elections in the not-too-distant future, like Spain and Italy – show various levels of vulnerability to opposition parties (Chart 23). Chart 23Post-COVID EU Elections Will Not Be A Cakewalk Chart 24Immigration Tailwind For Populism Subsided The chief risks to Europe stem from fiscal normalization and instability abroad. Regime failures in the Middle East and Africa could send new waves of immigration, and high levels of immigration have fueled anti-establishment politics over the past decade. Yet this is not a problem at the moment (Chart 24). And even more so than the US, the EU has tightened border enforcement and control over immigration (Chart 25). This has enabled the political establishment to save itself from populist discontent. The other danger for Europe is posed by Russian instability. In general, Moscow is focusing on maintaining domestic stability amid the pandemic and ongoing economic austerity, as well as eventual succession concerns. However, Vladimir Putin’s low approval rating has often served as a warning that Russia might take an external action to achieve some limited national objective and instigate opposition from the West, which increases government support at home (Chart 26). Chart 25Europe Tough On Immigration Like US Chart 26Warning Sign That Russia May Lash Out Chart 27Russian Geopolitical Risk Premium Rising The US Democratic Party is also losing faith in engagement with Russia, so while it will need to negotiate on Iran and arms reduction, it will also seek to use sanctions and democracy promotion to undermine Putin’s regime and his leverage over Europe. The Russian geopolitical risk premium will rise, upsetting an otherwise fairly attractive opportunity relative to other emerging markets (Chart 27). Bottom Line: The European democracies have passed a major “stress test” over the past decade. The dollar will fall relative to the euro, in keeping with macro fundamentals, though it will not be supplanted as the leading reserve currency. Europe and the euro will benefit from the change of power in Washington, and a rise in European political risks will still be minor from a global point of view. Russia and the ruble will suffer from a persistent risk premium. Investment Takeaways As the “Year of the Rat” draws to a close, geopolitical risk and global policy uncertainty have come off the boil and safe haven assets have sold off. Yet geopolitical risk will remain elevated in 2021. The secular drivers of the dramatic rise in this risk since 2008 have not been resolved. To play the above themes and views, we are initiating the following strategic investment recommendations: Long developed market equities ex-US – US outperformance over DM has reached extreme levels and the global economic cycle and post-pandemic revival will favor DM-ex-US. Long emerging market equities ex-China – Emerging markets will benefit from a falling dollar and commodity recovery. China has seen the good news but now faces the headwinds outlined above. Long European industrials relative to global – European equities stand to benefit from the change of power in Washington, US-China decoupling, and the global recovery. Long Mexican industrials versus emerging markets – Mexico witnessed the rise of an American protectionist and a landslide election in favor of a populist left-winger. Now it has a new trade deal with the US and the US is diversifying from China, while its ruling party faces a check on its power via midterm elections, and, regardless, has maintained orthodox economic policy. Long Indian equities versus Chinese – Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a single party majority, four years on his political clock, and has recommitted to pro-productivity structural reforms. The nation is taking more concerted action in pursuit of economic development since strategic objectives in South Asia cannot be met without greater dynamism. The US, Japan, Australia, and other countries are looking to develop relations as they diversify from China.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Butterflies & Yield Curve Models: With bond market volatility now back to the subdued levels seen prior to the COVID-19 market turbulence earlier in 2020, it is a good time to update our global yield curve valuation models to look for attractive butterfly trade ideas. Valuations: The models generally indicate that flattener trades offer better value across all countries. Our medium-term strategic bias, however, is towards steeper yield curves with policy rates on hold and depressed global inflation expectations likely to continue drifting higher over the latter half of the year. Yield Curve Trades: We are initiating the first set of yield curve trades within our rebooted Tactical Trade Overlay: going long a 7-year bullet vs. a 5-year/10-year barbell in the US; long a 2-year/30-year barbell vs. a 5-year bullet in France; long a 5-year/30-year barbell vs. a 10-year bullet in Italy; and long a 3-year/20-year barbell vs. a 10-year bullet in the UK. Feature In a Special Report published back in February of this year, we dusted off our model-based framework to find value in trades focused on the shape of government bond yield curves.1 By comparing the market-implied short-term interest rate expectations extracted from our curve models to our own macro views, we are able to come up with actionable buy or sell signals across the yield curve in nine developed markets: the US, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia. Table 1Most Attractive Butterfly Trades Given the extreme market turbulence around the time we published that report, as the full scope of the COVID-19 pandemic was becoming evident, we chose not to recommend any curve trades from our models until global volatility subsided to acceptable levels. The vigorous action from central banks to manipulate bond yields since then - quantitative easing, aggressive forward guidance, outright yield curve control in Japan and Australia, and other unconventional monetary policy measures - introduced another layer of difficulty in implementing successful curve trades using models estimated in more normal times. With global bond market volatility now back down to pre-COVID levels, we feel that the time is right to use our curve models to help identify opportunities. Specifically, we are implementing new recommended yield curve trades in the US, France, Italy, and the UK. Table 1 shows the most attractive butterfly trades across all the markets covered in this analysis. Note that three of the four trades we are initiating include very long-dated bonds where yields are less susceptible to direct central bank influence. The only exception is our US long 7-year bullet vs. 5-year/10-year barbell trade, the reasoning for which we outline later in this report. Three of the four trades we are initiating include very long-dated bonds where yields are less susceptible to direct central bank influence. The only exception is our US long 7-year bullet vs. 5-year/10-year barbell trade. Before delving into our analysis proper, a quick note: in the interest of brevity, we will limit ourselves to a simple explanation of butterfly strategies and our yield curve models in this report. For those interested in a deeper explanation of the curve modeling framework, please refer to our February 25, 2020 Special Report. A Recap On Butterflies And An Update On Our Yield Curve Models A butterfly fixed income strategy involves two main components: a barbell (a weighted combination of long-term and short-term bonds) and a bullet (a medium-term bond that sits within the yield curve segment selected in the barbell). To implement a butterfly strategy, a bond investor would go long (short) the barbell while simultaneously going short (long) the bullet. By weighting the combination of the long- and short-term bonds in the butterfly such that the weighted sum of their duration equals the duration of the medium-term bond in the bullet, we achieve immunization to parallel shifts in the yield curve. At the same time, due to the relatively higher duration of the longer-term component of the butterfly, we get exposure to specific changes in the slope of the yield curve. In general, the barbell will outperform the bullet in a flattening yield curve environment, and vice-versa. Chart of the WeekButterfly Spreads & Yield Curves To actually decide how, and on which parts of the yield curve, to implement our butterfly strategies, we make use of our yield curve models. These models rely on the positive relationship typically observed between the butterfly spread and the slope of the yield curve. When the curve steepens, the butterfly spread widens, and vice-versa (Chart of the Week). This has to do with mean reversion: as the curve steepens, it increases the odds that the curve will flatten in the future since it cannot steepen indefinitely. Consequently, investors will ask for greater compensation to enter a curve steepener trade when the curve is already steepening. As a result, we can create simplified models of the yield curve by regressing any butterfly spread on its corresponding curve slope. Deviations from these fair value models indicate which butterfly strategies are cheap or expensive. However, the model output does not by itself constitute a buy or sell signal and must be integrated with our macro view on the slope of the curve. For example, a butterfly strategy with an expensive bullet implies that there is already a certain amount of steepening discounted in the yield curve. If the yield curve flattens, or even steepens by an amount smaller than what is discounted in the yield curve over the investment horizon, the barbell will outperform, as expected. However, if we see more steepening than is discounted in the yield curve, the bullet will outperform, even though it was already at relatively expensive levels. Therefore, it is crucial to integrate our macro view on how much the curve will steepen or flatten over the investment horizon into our curve trade selection framework. In recent reports, we have emphasized our high-conviction view that global inflation expectations will drift higher in the coming months, driven by reflationary fiscal and monetary policy and a continued rebound in global commodity prices (most notably, oil).2 However, a rise in inflation expectations does not necessarily translate to a “one-to-one” rise in nominal yields if it is offset by a compression in real bond yields. To disentangle this, we look at the 3-year rolling betas of nominal 10-year government bond yields to the corresponding 10-year breakeven inflation rates using inflation-linked bonds (Chart 2). The data suggest a currently weaker relationship between inflation expectations and nominal yields, with all betas well below their post-crisis maxima. Our overall macro bias is towards a global steepening in yield curves, but given our strong belief in a rebound in inflation expectations, we would be more willing to enter steepener trades in higher-beta regions such as Germany, Canada, the US, and Australia where it is more likely that a rise in inflation expectations will translate to higher nominal yields. Conversely, we are less hesitant to enter flatteners in the lower-beta regions such as the UK, France, Italy, and Japan. Chart 2The Link Between Nominal Yields And Inflation Expectations Has Weakened When we said earlier this year that we were “dusting off” our yield curve models, that was not just a figure of speech. The models date back originally to 2002, meaning that they are old enough to vote—perhaps even for a popular rapper. Even though we have been refining and updating it along the way, one of our concerns was that this model was estimated for a pre-crisis sample period before near-zero rates became ubiquitous in developed markets. Our overall macro bias is towards a global steepening in yield curves, but given our strong belief in a rebound in inflation expectations, we would be more willing to enter steepener trades in higher-beta regions such as Germany, Canada, the US, and Australia. To test that the curve relationships within our models are maintained when global central banks are pinning policy rates near 0%, we have re-estimated all the regressions for the post-financial crisis period from 2009 to 2017 when most central banks kept rates near the zero bound. Chart 3 shows the results for the representative 2-year, 5-year and 10-year portions of the yield curve. On the whole, the coefficients are weaker but still positive with the exception of Japan, where many years of zero rates and quantitative easing have caused the 2-year/5-year/10-year butterfly spread to become largely unmoored from the 2-year/10-year slope. Chart 3Looking For Structural Shifts In Our Yield Curve Models Therefore, we still see value in our curve modeling approach, even in the current environment where central banks are likely to be on hold for a period measured in years, not months. Bottom Line: Butterfly strategies are an effective way to position for changes in the slope of the yield curve without exposure to shifts in the curve. Our current strategic bias is to expect steepening of developed market yield curves through rising longer-term inflation expectations, but our global yield curve models indicate better value in most flattening trades. Thus, we need to be extremely selective in recommending trades based on the results of our yield curve models. Yield Curve Models And Trades By Region In the remaining pages of this report, we present the current read-outs from of our yield curve models for each of the major developed markets. More specifically, we provide the deviations from fair value for different combinations of bullets and barbells and highlight the most attractive butterfly strategy. The deviations from fair value shown in Tables 2-10 are standardized to facilitate comparisons between the different butterfly combinations. In addition, for each country we provide a quick assessment of the performance of these butterfly strategies over time by applying a simple mechanical trading rule. Every month, we enter the most attractive butterfly strategy, i.e. the one with the highest absolute standardized deviation from its model fair value. The overall message from the models is that barbells appear attractive relative to bullets across all the countries shown. However, we will only initiate trades in cases where the model output and our macro outlook complement each other. US Looking solely at our model output, US Treasury curve flatteners appear most attractive, with the long 3-year/30-year barbell vs. 5-year bullet trade displaying the greatest deviation from fair value with a residual of -1.55 (Table 2). However, we are inclined to agree with our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy on how to interpret Treasury curve valuation in the current environment. They argue that even though steepeners in the US are currently expensive, valuations can become even more overstretched with the Fed signaling no rate increases for at least the next two years and the market priced for an extended period of near-zero rates.3 Table 2US: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Our fundamental bias is towards US Treasury curve steepening, with the Fed locking down the front end of the curve and rising inflation expectations putting upward pressure on longer-term yields. Thus, we are entering into the long 7-year bullet vs. 5/10 barbell trade which has a small but positive model residual of +0.17. That represents a better valuation starting point than the other US butterfly spreads, and is therefore a more efficient and profitable way to position for steepeners becoming even more expensive going forward. As highlighted earlier, nominal yields in the US are also more sensitive to rising inflation expectations—another reason to enter into a curve steepener. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27 within our Tactical Trade Overlay table. Nominal yields in the US are also more sensitive to rising inflation expectations—another reason to enter into a curve steepener.  The 7-year bullet appears just 1bp cheap according to our model and would only underperform its counterpart given a flattening in the 5-year/10-year Treasury slope greater than 22bps, which we believe is unlikely given the reasons outlined above (Chart 4A). Chart 4AUS 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 4BUS Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule has delivered steady returns with only a few periods of negative year-over-year returns (Chart 4B). Germany The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the German yield curve is going long the 1-year/30-year barbell and shorting the 5-year bullet, which is almost one standard deviation above its model-implied fair value, with a standardized residual of -0.97 (Table 3). Table 3Germany: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 5-year bullet appears 29bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 1-year/30-year German curve slope greater than 50bps (Chart 5A). Chart 5AGermany 1/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 5BGermany Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule has been quite profitable, delivering consistently positive year-over-year returns for all but the initial period of our sample (Chart 5B). France The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the French OAT yield curve is going long the 2-year/30-year barbell and shorting the 5-year bullet (Table 4). This combination is a little less than one standard deviation over its model-implied fair value with a standardized residual of -0.84. Nominal yields in France are also relatively less correlated with inflation expectations, which makes this a prime candidate for a flattener trade. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27 within our Tactical Trade Overlay table. Table 4France: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 5-year bullet appears 21bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 2-year/30-year French curve slope greater than 48bps (Chart 6A). Chart 6AFrance 2/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 6BFrance Butterfly Strategy Performance As with Germany, following the mechanical trading rule in the French OAT market has also been profitable, with only three periods of negative year-over-year returns in our sample period (Chart 6B). Italy And Spain In Italy, the most attractively valued butterfly combination is going long the 5-year/30-year barbell and shorting the 10-year bullet – a combination with a standardized residual of -0.79 (Table 5). In Spain, going long the 3-year/30-year barbell and short the 5-year bullet seems most attractive with a standardized residual of -0.83 (Table 6). Of the two peripheral euro area countries, we are choosing to put on a trade in the relatively larger and more liquid Italian government bond market. As with France, Italian nominal yields also display a relatively low beta to inflation breakevens. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27 within our Tactical Trade Overlay table. Table 5Italy: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Table 6Spain: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals In Italy, the 10-year bullet appears 22bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5-year/30-year Italian curve slope greater than 153bps (Chart 7A). Following the mechanical trading rule in Italy has yielded strong excess returns, with only one very short period of negative year-over-year returns in our sample period (Chart 7B).  As with Italy, following the mechanical trading rule in Spain has yielded some of the strongest excess returns on a cumulative and year-over-year basis. Chart 7AItaly 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 7BItaly Butterfly Strategy Performance In Spain, the 5-year bullet appears 14bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 3-year/30-year Spanish curve slope greater than 47bps (Chart 8A). As with Italy, following the mechanical trading rule in Spain has yielded some of the strongest excess returns on a cumulative and year-over-year basis (Chart 8B). Chart 8ASpain 3/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 8BSpain Butterfly Strategy Performance UK On the UK Gilt yield curve, the most attractive butterfly combination is holding a 3-year/20-year barbell versus a 10-year bullet, which currently displays a standardized residual of -1.08 (Table 7). As with France and Italy, not only is this flattener trade attractively valued, the UK is also one of the countries where inflation breakevens are relatively less correlated with nominal yields, making this another excellent candidate for our Tactical Trade Overlay. The specific securities used to execute this trade, as well as the weights for the barbell component used to the make both legs of the trade duration-equivalent, can be found on Page 27. Table 7UK: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 10-year bullet appears 13bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 3-year/20-year Gilt curve slope greater than 52bps (Chart 9A). Chart 9AUK 3/10/20 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 9BUK Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule in the UK has produced consistent returns on a year-over-year basis (Chart 9B). Canada The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the Canadian yield curve is favoring the 5-year/30-year barbell versus the 7-year bullet, which currently displays a standardized residual of -1.41 (Table 8). Table 8Canada: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 7-year bullet appears 7bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5-year/30-year Canadian curve slope greater than 42bps (Chart 10A). Chart 10ACanada 5/7/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 10BCanada Butterfly Strategy Performance Following the mechanical trading rule in Canada has historically been a good strategy, but we do note two periods of minor losses in 2013 and 2019 (Chart 10B). Japan The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the JGB yield curve is the 5-year/20-year barbell versus the 7-year bullet, which currently has a standardized residual of -1.03 (Table 9). As we noted earlier, however, valuations in the JGB market are likely distorted due to the Bank of Japan’s long-running programs of quantitative easing, zero policy rates and Yield Curve Control that aims to keep the 10-year JGB yield around 0%. Table 9Japan: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 7-year bullet appears 6bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 5-year/20-year Japan curve slope greater than 23bps (Chart 11A). Following our mechanical trading rule has produced decent returns, especially given the dormant nature of the JGB market, with only a couple minor periods without positive year-over-year returns. Chart 11AJapan 5/7/20 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 11BJapan Butterfly Strategy Performance Following our mechanical trading rule has produced decent returns, especially given the dormant nature of the JGB market, with only a couple minor periods without positive year-over-year returns (Chart 11B). Australia The most attractively valued butterfly combination on the Australian yield curve is going long the 2-year/10-year barbell versus the 7-year bullet, displaying a standardized residual of -1.73 (Table 10). Table 10Australia: Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals The 7-year bullet appears 15bps expensive according to our model and would only outperform its counterpart given a steepening in the 2-year/10-year Australian curve slope greater than 101bps (Chart 12A). Chart 12AAustralia 2/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 12BAustralia Butterfly Strategy Performance Compared to the other markets in our analysis, following the mechanical trading rule in Australia has not produced stellar returns (Chart 12B). However, excess returns on a year-over-year basis have been positive barring two periods.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Global Yield Curve Trades: Follow The Butterflies", dated February 25, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds", dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index ​​​​​​​ Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Global stimulus efforts are sufficient thus far, but more will need to be done, especially by Europe and emerging markets. Hiccups will not be well-received by financial markets. The net public wealth of countries helps put debt constraints into perspective in a world of zero and negative interest rates. Insufficient fiscal policy is a bigger risk for Europe in the near term than any Germany-mandated withdrawal of ECB quantitative easing. European states remain locked in a geopolitical predicament that prevents them from abandoning each other despite serious differences over fiscal policy, which will persist. We are tactically long defensive plays and safe havens. Stay long JPY-EUR. Feature This week we focus on two questions: Will global stimulus be enough to fill the gap in demand? And will Germany impose a hard limit on European stimulus efforts? Our answers are yes to the first and no to the second. It is impossible for governments to replace private activity indefinitely, but the resumption of private activity is inevitable one way or another. Governments are continuing to provide massive fiscal and monetary support. The near term is cloudy, however, due to the mismatch between uncertain economic reopening and increasing impediments to new stimulus. Weak spots in the global fiscal stimulus efforts arise in Europe and emerging markets excluding China. Europe, at least, is a temporary catch – as Germany has no choice but to help the rest of the EU prop up aggregate demand. But fiscal policy is a greater near-term risk to peripheral European assets than any cessation of monetary support from the ECB. Will Global Stimulus Be Enough? Yes, Eventually Chart 1 shows the latest update of our global fiscal stimulus chart comparing the size of today’s stimulus to the 2008-10 period. Countries that make up 92% of global GDP are providing about 8% of global GDP in fiscal stimulus. Full calculations can be found in the Appendix. Chart 1US Still Leads In Fiscal Stimulus The chief difference between our calculation and that of others is that we include government loans while excluding government loan guarantees. If a government gives a loan to a business or household, funds are transferred to the receiver’s deposits and can be spent to make necessary purchases or pay fixed costs. A loan guarantee, by contrast, is helpful but does not involve a transfer of funds. Our colleague Jonathan LaBerge, has recently written a Special Report analyzing the size of global fiscal stimulus. He provides an alternative calculation in Chart 2, which focuses on “above the line” measures, i.e. only measures affecting government revenues and expenditures. Government loans, guarantees, and other “below the line” measures are left aside in this conservative definition of stimulus. Chart 2Japan Leads In IMF “Above The Line” Account Of Stimulus Chart 3 shows the discrepancies between Jonathan’s version and our own – they are not very large. The major differences are Japan, China, Germany, Italy, and South Africa. Of these only Germany, Japan, and China are significant.1 Chart 3Geopolitical Strategy Estimates Accord Less Stimulus To Japan, More To Germany And China, Than IMF Does In Japan’s case, we include the stimulus measures that Japan passed at the end of 2019 because even though they were not passed in response to the pandemic, they will take affect at the same time as those that were. We do not include private sector complements to government action, which Japan includes in its account, since private responses are hard to predict and we do not include them for other countries. In China’s case, official estimates underrate the easing of credit policy. Credit is a quasi-fiscal function in China since the Communist Party controls the banks. With a large credit expansion the overall stimulus impact will be larger than expected, as long as borrowers still want to borrow. Data thus far this year suggests that they do, if only to cover expenses and debt payments. Our assessment that China’s stimulus will reach about 10% of GDP follows BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy. The UK and especially Italy, Spain, and France are falling short in their stimulus efforts … Is global stimulus “enough” to plug the gap in demand? Chart 4 shows our colleague Jonathan’s narrower definition of stimulus compared with estimates of the drop in demand from social lockdowns and spillover effects. It assumes a fiscal multiplier of 1.1. The result suggests that the US, China, and Australia are clearly doing enough; Germany, Japan, and Canada are arguably doing enough; other countries including Italy, France, and Spain will likely have to do more. Chart 4Which Countries Have Plugged The Gap In Demand So Far? The latest news confirms this assessment. The US Congress is negotiating another phase of stimulus that will provide a second round of direct payments to households, a third infusion of small business loans, and a large bailout of state and local governments. The current total is $2 trillion, and so far this year these totals are only revised upward. This tendency stems from the political setup: Trump needs to stimulate for the election, GOP senators’ fates ultimately hinge on Trump, while the House Democrats cannot withhold stimulus merely to undermine the Republicans. Similarly, there can be little doubt that China and Japan will provide more stimulus to maintain full employment – their different political systems have always demanded it. We are more concerned about Europe. The UK and especially Italy, Spain, and France are falling short in their stimulus efforts, with the last three ranging from 2%-4% of GDP, according to Chart 4 above. They will add more stimulus, but might they still fall short of what is needed? Assuming that the ECB will provide adequate liquidity, and that low bond yields for a long time will enable debts to be serviced, these countries can service their debts for some time. But what then is the constraint? From a long-term point of view, the UK and peripheral European nations have relatively fewer national assets to weigh against their well-known liabilities. They are closer to their constraints in issuing debt, even if those constraints are nearly impossible to establish and years away from being hit. This is apparent from the IMF’s data series on net public wealth, i.e. total public sector assets and liabilities (Chart 5A). These data, from 2016, are a bit stale, but they are still useful because they take account of assets like natural resources, real estate, state-owned companies, and pension plans that retain value over the long run. It does no good to refer to the large debt loads of countries without considering the vast holdings that they command. By the same token, at some point the debt loads look formidable even relative to these huge realms. Chart 5ANet Public Wealth: A Fuller Picture Of The Debt Story These data tend to underrate the sustainability of developed markets, which are highly indebted but have reserve currencies, safe haven status, and large, liquid credit markets. They overrate the sustainability of emerging markets, with large resource wealth and low-debt, but vulnerable currencies and credit markets. This is not only true for emerging markets with the most negative net worth, like Brazil, or with unsustainable fiscal policies, like Turkey and South Africa. China would look a lot worse in net public wealth, if this could be calculated, than it does on the general government ledger (Chart 5B), due to the liabilities of its state-owned enterprises and local governments. It would look more like the US or Japan in net public wealth – yet without a reserve currency. Chart 5BNet Government Debt: Flatters EM, Not DM Nevertheless the European states have a problem that the other developed markets do not have: the Euro Area’s “constitutional” order is still unsettled. Questions are continually arising about whether countries’ liabilities are backstopped by a single currency authority and the entire assets of the Euro Area. These questions will tend to be settled in favor of European integration. But treaty battles in the context of upcoming elections – in the Netherlands, Germany, France, and likely Italy and Spain – will provide persistent volatility. Bottom Line: Fiscal stimulus passed thus far is only “sufficient” in a few economies; it is insufficient in southern Europe and emerging markets. Uncertainty about the pandemic, and the pace of economic reopening and normalization, combined with any hiccups in providing adequate stimulus will create near-term volatility. Will Germany Halt Quantitative Easing? No, Not Ultimately The questions about Europe highlighted above have come to the fore with the reemergence of the “German question,” which in today’s context means Germany’s and northern Europe’s willingness to conduct fiscal policy to help rebalance the Euro Area and monetary policy to ease conditions for heavily indebted, low productivity southern Europe. We have little doubt that Germany will provide more than its current 10.3% of GDP fiscal stimulus given that it has explicitly stated that state lender KfW has no limit on the amount of loans it can provide to small businesses. This accounts for the difference between our fiscal stimulus estimate and the IMF’s, but the fullest count, including “below the line” measures, would amount to nearly 35% of GDP. A sea change in the German attitude toward fiscal policy has occurred, which we have tracked in reports over the years. This shift gives permission for other European states to loosen their belts as well. We also have little doubt that German leaders will ultimately accept the ECB’s need to take desperate measures to backstop the European financial system: The “dirty little secret” of the Euro Area is that debt is already mutualized through the Target 2 banking imbalance, worth 1.5 trillion euros (Chart 6). As our Chief European Investment Strategist Dhaval Joshi has argued, Germany, as the largest shareholder in the ECB, holds a large quantity of Italian bonds, and Italians have deposited the proceeds of these bond purchases in German banks. All of this is denominated in euros. If Italy redenominates into lira, it can make bond payments in lira and the ECB and Germany will suffer capital losses. Germany would then face Italians withdrawing their deposits from German banks that would still be denominated in euros (or the deutschmark). The cause of this predicament is the ECB’s quantitative easing program (Chart 7). Chart 6Europe’s Gordian Knot Thus Chancellor Angela Merkel’s shift in tone to become more supportive of joint debt issuance belies the fact that European debt is already mutualized through the Gordian knot of Target2 imbalances. This is a politically unpalatable reality for Germans, but they generally accept it because it is in Germany’s national interest to maintain the monetary union and broader European integration. Chart 7Quantitative Easing Puts Germans On Hook For Italy However, the market may need reassurances about “the German question” from time to time, as EU institutional evolution is ongoing. Financial markets did not sell off on the German court’s ruling on May 5, which ostensibly gave the Bundesbank three months before withdrawing from the ECB’s quantitative easing program. Since the sovereign debt crisis, investors have come to recognize that there is more undergirding European integration than mere German preference. Namely, geopolitics – which we have outlined many times, originally in a 2011 Special Report. European nations cannot compete globally without banding together, and Germany is not powerful enough to go it alone. Still, there will be more consequences from this week’s ruling. At issue is the budgetary sovereignty of the European member states as well as Article 123 of the Treaty of Europe, which holds that neither the ECB nor the national central banks of member states can directly purchase public debts. The latter is a prohibition on the monetary financing of deficits. It became controversial in the wake of Mario Draghi’s 2012 declaration that the ECB would do “whatever it takes” to preserve the euro and the ECB’s 2015 Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) quantitative easing program, which the European Court of Justice deemed legal on December 11, 2018. The controversy is now implicitly shifting to the new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program. The other principle concerned is that of “proportionality,” which requires that EU entities not take actions beyond what is necessary to achieve treaty objectives. If the ECB acted without regard to the limits of its mandate, the fiscal supremacy of the states, and the broader economic and fiscal consequences of QE, then its actions would violate the principle of proportionality and would require adjustment by EU authorities or non-participation from member state authorities. The German court did not attempt to overrule or invalidate the European court’s decision in favor of QE, or QE as a whole. Rather, it held that this ruling was not “comprehensible,” hence requiring an independent German ruling, and that the larger question of whether QE violates the prohibition against debt monetization is “not ascertainable.” The reason is that the ECB did not explain its actions adequately and the European Court of Justice did not demand an explanation. Presumably once this is done more decisive determinations can be made. Essentially the German court is demanding “documentation” by the ECB Governing Council that it weighed its monetary decisions against larger economic and fiscal consequences. So will the Bundesbank withdraw from the ECB’s QE operations in three months? Highly unlikely! The ECB, whether directly or indirectly, will provide an assessment of the proportionality of its actions to the Bundesbank and the German court will probably conclude, with limitations, that the ECB’s actions were largely within its mandate. If not, however, markets will plunge. Then the Bundestag or the Bundesbank will have to intervene to ensure that Germany does not in fact withdraw support from the ECB. European nations cannot compete globally without banding together, and Germany is not powerful enough to go it alone. How can we be sure? German opinion. Chancellor Merkel and her ruling Christian Democrats have not suffered this year so far from launching a wartime fiscal expansion and backing the ECB and EU institutions in their emergency actions. On the contrary, they have received one of the biggest bounces in popular opinion polls of any western leaders over the course of the global pandemic. While the bounce will deflate once the acute crisis subsides, this polling signals more than the average rally around the flag (Chart 8). Merkel’s approval rating started to rise when her party embraced more expansive fiscal policy in late 2019 in reaction to malaise revealed in the 2017 election. Germany’s handling of today’s crisis, both the pandemic and the expansive fiscal policy, has put the ruling party in the lead for the 2021 elections (Chart 9). Chart 8Germans See Popular Opinion ‘Bounce’ Amid COVID Chart 9Merkel's CDU Revives Amid Global Crisis Chart 10Germans Support Euro, But Lean On ECB Moreover Germans are enthusiastically in support of the euro and the EU relative to their peers – which makes sense because Germany has been the greatest beneficiary of European integration (Chart 10). The ECB, by contrast, does not have strong support – and is losing altitude. But a crisis provoked by the court and centered on the ECB would quickly become a crisis about the euro and European project as a whole. Opinion has broken in this direction despite Merkel’s and Germany’s many compromises over the years. Remember that Merkel’s capitulation to the Mediterranean states on the European Council in June 2011, which paved the way for Draghi’s famous dictum, was initially seen as a failure by her to defend German interests. Merkel and her party have also recovered from the hit they took when she insisted that Germany take in a huge influx of Syrian refugees in 2015. German popular opinion is relevant when discussing the judicial system and rule of law. No court can ignore popular opinion entirely, no matter how independent and austere, because every court ultimately needs public opinion to maintain its credibility. The European Court’s decision is final, as long as Germany remains committed to the EU. Yet German sovereignty still gives German institutions a say. If the German court persists in attempting to block Bundesbank participation in QE, the result will be a bond market riot that pushes up peripheral debt funding costs. This would eventually risk forcing peripheral states out of the Euro Area, which is against German interests. It is very unlikely things will go so far. Rather, the court will back down after receiving due attention and having its legitimate concerns addressed. The imperatives of European integration are as powerful today as they were in 2011. True, other court challenges will open up against the ECB, particularly the PEPP. But bear in mind that it will be even easier to show that ECB actions are proportional – that broader economic consequences have been weighed – in the case of the pandemic relief emergency than with respect to PSPP prior to COVID. Today it is households and small businesses that need protection from an act of God, not banks and bureaucracies that need protection from the consequences of their excesses. As for the size and duration of QE, the court will try to force some limitations to be acknowledged given the risk to fiscal sovereignty. In this sense, the ECB faces a new constraint, albeit one that we doubt will prove relevant in the near term. Ultimately, the consequence of imposing some limits on central bank policy is to restore authority to member state budgets and European fiscal coordination. In the short term, emergency provision can be provided via the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), whose lending conditions can be relaxed, and by the ECB’s Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT), which can buy bonds amid a market riot. But beyond the immediate crisis the clash over fiscal policy will persist because at some point countries will have to climb down from their extraordinary stimulus and the attempt to restore limits will be contentious. Germany has already made a huge shift in a more fiscally accommodative direction. Italy, Spain, and France are currently not providing enough, but they will add more. Future governments might demand more than even today’s more dovish Germany is willing to accept. Down the road, if these states do not provide more stimulus, then their recoveries will be weaker and political malaise will get worse. An anti-establishment outcome is already likely in Italy in the coming year or two, due to the ability of the League to capitalize on post-COVID voter anger. The big question after that is France in 2022. Macron’s approval rating is holding up, we expect him to win, but his bounce amid the pandemic is not remarkable. From our point of view the peripheral states have a license to spend, so spend they will. But then fiscal conflicts will revive later. Bottom Line: The German constitutional court is not going to try to force the Bundesbank to withdraw from QE, but it is attempting to lay a foundation for the imposition of at least some limits on this policy. The risk to European assets in the short run is not on the monetary side but the fiscal side. Over the long run, the “German question” will never be settled. But the imperatives of European integration are as powerful today as they were in 2011. Each new crisis exposes the weakness of the peripheral states, their need for European institutions. It also exposes Germany’s need to accommodate them when they form a united front. Investment Takeaways Financial markets have no clarity on economic reopening in the face of the virus or how governments will respond to resurgent outbreaks or a second wave in the fall. Taking into consideration the initial shock of the lockdowns plus spillover effects, the cumulative impact to annual GDP rises to 6%-8% by the end of this year for major economies. If another lockdown occurs, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region. This bare risk suggests that global equities face a relapse in the near term. Eventually economic reopening will proceed, as the working age population will demand it. But the path between here and there is rocky and any hiccups in providing stimulus will create even more volatility. Globally, we continue to argue that political and geopolitical risks are rising across the board as the pandemic and recession evolve into a struggle among nations to maintain security amid vulnerabilities and distract from their problems at home. Rumors that China is about to declare an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea are unverified but we have long expected this to occur and tensions and at least some saber-rattling would ensue. We also expect the US to surprise the market with punitive tech and trade measures against China in the near term and to upgrade relations with Taiwan. We remain long JPY-EUR on a tactical 0-3 month horizon. We are converting our tactical long S&P consumer staples, which is up 6%, to a relative trade against the broad market. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix Table 1The Global Fiscal Stimulus Response To COVID-19 Footnotes 1 In the case of Italy, we assume that parliament will pass the latest proposed increase in stimulus from 1.4% to 3.1% of GDP. In the case of South Africa, we expect the IMF to include these measures soon. Germany is discussed below.

Highlights ECB: The ECB disappointed markets last week who expected an increase in the size of its asset purchase schemes given the recent increase of Italian bond yields. For now, the central bank remains focused on preventing a European credit crunch through increased use of bank funding measures like TLTROs – although a renewed selloff in BTPs would likely change the minds of the “Italy hawks” on the ECB Governing Council. Euro Area High-Yield: Valuations for euro area junk bonds improved somewhat during the COVID-19 selloff, but spreads do not offer much protection from the coming surge in default losses. Remain underweight euro area high-yield corporates in global fixed income portfolios. Feature Chart 1Will Growth Trump Liquidity For Euro Area Junk Bonds? Over the past week, investors heard from the three major developed market central banks – the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ). The Fed and BoJ did little to seriously impact financial markets, offering only strengthened forward guidance on already hyper-easy policy settings along with some expansion of existing asset purchase programs (involving municipal bonds for the Fed, JGBs and Japanese corporate bonds for the BoJ). The ECB was the most interesting of the three, because of what was NOT done – namely, an increase in the amount of asset purchases – and what it implies about the policy debate within the central bank on how to deal with Italy. The hit to the euro area economy from the COVID-19 lockdowns has been sharp and brutal, pushing the entire region quickly into deep recession (Chart 1). Given such a severe hit to growth, and with policy interest rates already at zero (or even negative), the only avenue for the ECB to deliver more stimulus is through expanding its balance sheet through asset purchases and liquidity provision to banks. This makes the ECB’s next moves on its balance sheet critical for determining the future path of European risk assets like equities and high-yield corporate bonds – the latter of which we discuss later in this report. A Cautious Next Step From The ECB Chart 2An Unprecedented Economic Collapse The need for the ECB to do something at last week’s monetary policy meeting was obvious. Real GDP for the entire region is estimated to have contracted -3.8% on a year-over-year basis in the first quarter of the year. At the country level, large declines occurred in France (-5.8%), Italy (-4.7%) and Spain (-5.2%) that were far greater than seen during the 2009 recession. The decline was broad-based across industries as well, with the European Commission’s (EC) business confidence indices collapsing in April for manufacturing, services, retail and construction (Chart 2). The bottom has also fallen out on the EC price expectations indices, suggesting that outright deflation across the euro area is just around the corner. The ECB last week provided what were called “alternative scenarios” for the impact of COVID-19 on euro area growth. We presume these are meant to be an alternative to the most recent set of ECB economic projections that were published in March that now look wildly optimistic given the COVID-19 lockdowns. The revised scenarios now call for a real GDP contraction in 2020 of anywhere from -5% to -12%, with only a partial recovery of those losses in 2021.1 The central bank also provided an estimate of the output loss by industry from COVID-19 related lockdowns (Table 1) – a staggering -60% for retail, transportation, accommodation and food services and -40% for manufacturing and construction. Table 1The Lockdown Has Been Painful For Europe Against this horrendous growth and inflation backdrop, with forecasts being slashed, the expectation was that the ECB would ramp up the size of its bond buying programs to try and ease financial conditions further. That would help cushion the growth downturn and attempt to put a floor under collapsing inflation expectations (Chart 3). Yet at last week’s monetary policy meeting, the ECB announced the following: No changes in policy interest rates No increase in the size of the Asset Purchase Program (APP) from the existing €120bn or Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) from the existing €750bn For existing targeted long-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) between June 2020 and June 2021, interest rates were lowered by -25bps A new long-term refinancing operation for euro area banks was introduced called the Pandemic Emergency Long Term Refinancing Operation (PELTRO), which would offer liquidity to euro area banks on a monthly basis until December, at an interest rate of -0.25%. The increased use of LTROs was an easier way for the ECB Governing Council to avoid a potential credit crunch if euro area banks become more risk averse. The ECB clearly wants to take no chances on banks reining in loan activity. The latest ECB Bank Lending Survey, released just two days before last week’s policy meeting, showed a modest tightening of standards for bank loans to businesses in the first quarter of 2020. This was most visible in Germany and Italy, with France actually showing a slight decline in the net percentage of banks tightening lending standards (Chart 4). The survey also showed that euro area banks expected a significant net easing of lending standards in response to the loan guarantees and liquidity support measures announced by European governments to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns. Chart 3Expanding The Balance Sheet Is The Only Tool The ECB Has Left Chart 4The ECB Wants To Avoid A Credit Crunch With bank lending growth across the entire euro area having already increased to 4.9% on a year-over-year basis in March, the fastest pace in two years, the ECB clearly wants to take no chances on banks reining in loan activity - even if those loans are merely for stressed companies tapping existing credit lines, or taking advantage of government loan guarantees to minimize layoffs in a deep recession. Another surge in Italian bond yields in the next few months would likely trigger an increase in the size of the PEPP. However, there was likely an additional reason why the ECB chose the LTRO route over ramping up asset purchases – internal political divisions over Italy. Chart 5Italian Financial Stability Remains Critical For The ECB There remain some on the ECB Governing Council that do not wish to keep buying more BTPs, thus giving Italy a blank check to run even larger budget deficits. The unique nature of the COVID-19 outbreak has somewhat loosened those biases against the highly indebted countries of southern Europe, as evidenced by the inclusion of Greek bonds in the PEPP shopping list. Yet there are still many within the ECB, and within the governments of the “hard money” countries of the euro area, who would prefer to see Italy get monetary support for greater deficit spending through ECB vehicles with conditionality like Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). Given these internal divisions over Italy, an increase in the size of the existing asset purchase schemes will only take place if there is a major increase in Italian risk premiums that threatens the financial stability of the entire euro area. On that front, risk indicators like the BTP-Bund spread and credit default spreads on Italian banks have risen over the past month, but remain well below the stressed levels witnessed during the Global Financial Crisis and the European Debt Crisis (Chart 5). Additionally, Italian bank stocks have actually been outperforming their euro area peers since early 2019, while the Italy-Germany spread curve is not inverted (2-year spreads higher than 10yr spreads) as occurred in 2011 when investors feared Italy would crash out of the euro. With Italian government yields still at relatively low and manageable levels, even as the highly-indebted Italian government has stated that its budget deficit will surge to -10% of GDP to provide stimulus to a virus-ravaged economy, there is no pressure on the ECB to increase the size of the PEPP that was just announced less than two months ago. Yet even with all the internal divisions, another surge in Italian bond yields in the next few months would likely trigger an increase in the size of the PEPP to prevent a broader tightening of euro area financial conditions. For this reason, we continue to recommend a strategic (6-12 months) overweight stance on Italian government bonds within global fixed income portfolios. Bottom Line: The ECB disappointed markets last week who expected an increase in the size of its asset purchase schemes given the recent increase of Italian bond yields. For now, the central bank remains focused on preventing a European credit crunch through increased use of bank funding measures like TLTROs – although a renewed selloff in BTPs would likely change the minds of the “Italy hawks” on the ECB Governing Council. A Quick Look At Euro Area High-Yield Valuation We recently upgraded our recommended investment stance on euro area investment grade corporate bonds to neutral.2 This shift was based on the ECB increasing the amount of its corporate bond purchases as part of its COVID-19 monetary easing measures, coming after the Fed announced its own new programs to buy US investment grade corporates. With the major central banks providing direct support to higher quality corporates, the left side of the return distribution for those bonds eligible for these purchase programs has effectively been reduced. This warrants a higher weighting for those bonds in investor portfolios. For high-yield corporates, the story is more nuanced. Both the Fed and ECB have announced that investment grade bonds purchased in their bond buying programs, which are then subsequently downgraded to below investment grade, can stay on the balance sheet of those programs. This makes Ba-rated junk bonds – the highest credit tier below investment grade – a relatively more attractive bet within the overall high-yield universe, both in the US and Europe. Although the lack of a direct central bank bid still makes high-yield corporates a riskier bet in a recessionary environment where default losses will surely increase. This means rather than just “buying what the central banks are buying”, we must rely on more traditional metrics to determine if high-yield bonds offer value. To evaluate the attractiveness of euro area high-yield corporates, we use three different approaches that use relative value to other credit markets, or more intrinsic value based on potential credit losses. Relative spreads vs. euro area investment grade One way to assess the value of euro area high-yield is to compare its credit spread to that of higher-rated euro area investment grade corporate bonds. Since movements in both spreads are highly correlated, as they both benefit from accelerating euro area economic growth (and vice versa), any change in spreads between the two could represent a relative value opportunity. Currently, the option-adjusted spread (OAS) of the euro area high-yield benchmark index (635bps) is 449bps over that of the investment grade index (186bps), using Bloomberg Barclays index data (Chart 6). While this is a relatively wide spread differential for the years since the 2008 financial crisis, it is not a particularly large gap during a recession that is likely to be deeper than the 2009 downturn. The same argument holds when looking at the ratio of the euro area high-yield OAS to the investment grade OAS, which is only at average levels for the post crisis period (3rd panel). 12-month breakeven spreads One of our favorite credit valuation tools is the 12-month breakeven spread, which measures the amount of spread widening over a one-year horizon that would make the total return of a corporate bond equal to that of a duration-matched government bond. We apply that calculation to data for an entire spread product sector, like investment grade or high-yield, to determine a breakeven spread for that sector. We then look at the percentile ranks of the breakeven spread versus its own history to determine if that particular fixed income sector looks relatively attractive. Rather than just “buying what the central banks are buying”, we must rely on more traditional metrics to determine if high-yield bonds offer value. On that basis, euro area high-yield corporates, across all credit tiers, offer somewhat attractive spreads, with 12-month breakevens in the upper half of the historical distribution (Chart 7). US high-yield, by comparison, offers far more attractive spreads with 12-month breakevens in the upper quartile of their historical distribution across all credit tiers. Only the riskiest Caa-rated bonds are in the top 25% of the distribution in the euro area (Chart 8). Chart 6In The Euro Area, HY Is Not That Cheap Versus IG Chart 712-Month Breakeven Spreads For Euro Area HY Are Now More Attractive ... Chart 8… But Not Versus US High-Yield The overall attractiveness of US high-yield versus euro area equivalents can also be seen when comparing the benchmark index yields in common currency terms. For the overall indices, euro area junk bond yields, hedged into USD dollars, offer a yield of 7.8%, virtually equal to the 8.0% yield in the US (Chart 9), although more material differences do exist within credit tiers. Chart 9A Comparison Of Junk Bond Yields In The Euro Area & The US Default-adjusted spreads The other metric that we use to assess the value of high-yield corporate bonds is default-adjusted spreads. This measure takes the high-yield index OAS and subtracts credit losses to determine an “excess” spread. We look at the current default-adjusted spread versus its long-run average to determine if high-yield spreads offer an attractive valuation cushion relative to expected credit losses. To determine the credit losses, we need the default rate, and the recovery rate given default, for the overall high-yield market. For defaults, we will use the output of our euro area default rate model (Chart 10). The model uses four variables: lending standards for businesses from the ECB bank lending survey, high-yield ratings downgrades as a share of all rating actions, euro area real GDP growth, and the median debt-to-equity ratio for a sample of issuers in the euro area high-yield space. All the variables are advanced such that the model produces a one-year-ahead forecast of expected high-yield defaults.3 Our high-yield model is projecting that the euro area default rate will climb to 11% by the end of 2020, before declining to 8% mid-2021 as the euro area economy recovers from the 2020 recession. For the euro recovery rate, we are using a range based on the historical experience during recessions (30%) and recoveries (45%). Using our default rate model projection, and that range of recovery rates, we can produce a range of euro area default-adjusted spreads. Euro area high-yield spreads do not offer much of a spread cushion to absorb expected default losses over the next year. Thus, euro area junk bonds are expensive. In Chart 11, we show the history of the euro area default adjusted spread. We have added the long run average (358bps) and the +/1 standard deviation of the spread. Spreads at or lower than -1 standard deviation are considered expensive (i.e. the high-yield index spread is too low relative to credit losses), and vice versa. The shaded box in the bottom right corner of the chart represents our forecasted default-adjusted spread for the next year. Chart 10Our Model Says The Euro Area Default Rate Will Surpass 10% Chart 11Euro Area HY Default-Adjusted Spreads Do Not Offer Compelling Value Chart 12An Aggressive Overweight Stance On Risk Assets Is Still Not Warranted Our projected spread range over the next twelve months is 218bps to -112bps, well below the long-run average and at the low end of the historical distribution. We conclude from this analysis that current euro area high-yield spreads do not offer much of a spread cushion to absorb expected default losses over the next year. Thus, euro area junk bonds are expensive. Given the lack of a compelling valuation argument under all our metrics, we are leaving our recommended investment stance on euro area high-yield bonds at underweight. We continue to focus our recommended global spread product allocations on overweights in markets where there is direct and explicit support from policymaker purchase programs: US investment grade bonds with maturity of less than five years, US Ba-rated high-yield bonds, and UK investment grade corporates. This selectively overweight investment stance on global credit is warranted from a risk management perspective, as well. Our “Pro-Risk Checklist” of indicators that would lead us to recommend a more aggressive stance on risk assets in general, and spread product in particular, is still flashing a cautious message (Chart 12). The US dollar continues to strengthen (exacerbating global deflation and dollar funding pressures); the VIX index of US equity volatility has fallen below our threshold of 40, but not by much; and the number of new global (ex-China) COVID-19 cases is showing mixed results, falling in the US and Italy but increasing elsewhere. Bottom Line: Valuations for euro area junk bonds improved somewhat during the COVID-19 selloff, but spreads do not offer much protection from the coming surge in default losses. Remain underweight euro area high-yield corporates in global fixed income portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The alternative ECB growth forecasts can be found here: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/focus/2020/html/ecb.ebbox202003_01~767f86ae95.en.html 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying", dated April 14, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 For real GDP growth, we use Bloomberg consensus forecasts for the next four quarters in the model. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. Feature The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart II-1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23rd, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart II-1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures Chart II-1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Instead, Chart II-2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.8 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart II-2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures Analysis by Bruegel provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table II-1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table II-1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries Table II-1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Chart II-3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.2 Chart II-3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart II-3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts II-1 – II-3 and Table II-1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart II-4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart II-4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart II-4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart II-5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). Chart II-5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart II-5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables II-2 and II-3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. Table II-2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions Table II-3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables II-2 and II-3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table II-2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Second, Table II-3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box II-1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box II-1 The “Bucket” Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The IMF “bucket” approach to estimating fiscal multiplier involves determining the multiplier that is likely to apply to a given country during “normal” circumstances, based on a set of structural characteristics associated with larger multipliers. This “normal” multiplier is then adjusted based on the following formula: M = MNT * (1+Cycle) * (1+Mon) Where M is the final multiplier estimate, MNT is the “normal times” multiplier derived from structural characteristics, Cycle is the cyclical factor ranging from −0.4 to +0.6, and Mon is the monetary policy stance factor ranging from 0 to 0.3. The Cycle factor is higher the more a country’s output gap is negative, and the Mon factor is higher the closer the economy is to the zero lower bound. Table II-B1 applies the IMF’s approach to the US, using the same structural score as the IMF presented in the note that described the approach. The table highlights that the approach suggests a US fiscal multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 given the maximum cycle adjustment proscribed by the rule, which we feel is reasonable given the unprecedented rise in US unemployment. We make no adjustment to the range for the zero lower bound. Table II-B1A Multiplier Estimate Of 1.1 – 1.6 Seems Reasonable For The US The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts II-1 - II-3 on pages 28-31. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. Chart II-6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart II-6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart II-6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table II-4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance. The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments. Table II-4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs Firms: On April 16th the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured. However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table II-5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The Table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. Table II-5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income Chart II-7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response. The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30th when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent. Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart II-7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.3 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart II-8 reproduces Chart II-3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart II-8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart II-8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Chart II-8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table II-6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.4 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table II-6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31st or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table II-6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart II-9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart II-9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart II-10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart II-10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart II-11). Chart II-11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort Chart II-12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart II-12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Chart II-13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged Third, Chart II-13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President Special Reports Footnotes 1  Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 2  Please note that Chart II-3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 3 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, www.bcaresearch.com. 4 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, in lieu of our regular report, we are sending you a Special Report from my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan discusses the global fiscal response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and provides some perspective on whether the response will be enough to prevent an "L-shaped" economic outcome. I hope you find the report insightful. Last Friday, I participated in a webcast with my fellow BCA Strategists Caroline Miller and Arthur Budaghyan where we discussed the outlook for developed and emerging market equities over the immediate (0-3 month) and cyclical (12 month) horizon. You can access a replay of the webcast here. Please note we will be sending out our regular weekly report next week. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession. The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. Even when narrowly-defined, the announced (or likely) fiscal response of the US, China, and Germany is quite large and appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. This is not the case, however, in other euro area economies (France, Italy, and Spain), or in emerging markets. Our analysis also suggests that the global fiscal response will need to increase if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. Feature The global economic expansion that began in 2009 has come to an abrupt end due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Aggressive containment measures necessary to control the spread of the disease and prevent the collapse in health care systems around the world have caused a large and sudden stop in global economic activity, which has prompted unprecedented responses from governments around the world. In this Special Report we explore in detail the fiscal response amongst advanced economies, with the goal of judging whether the response is large enough to prevent an “L-shaped” recession (characterized by a very prolonged return to trend growth). The crisis remains in its early days and new information about the size and character of the response, as well as the magnitude of the economic shock, continues to emerge on a near-daily basis. As such, our conclusions may change over the coming weeks in line with incoming data. But for now, we (tentatively) conclude that the fiscal response appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event. However, there are two important caveats. First, while Germany has provided among the strongest fiscal responses globally, measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Second, the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year – more will have to be done. For policymakers, this underscores the importance of ensuring that the “Great Lockdown” succeeds at reducing the spread of the disease to a point that does not necessitate widespread renewed restrictions on economic activity. In this regard, the gradual re-opening of several US states by early-May, while positive for economic activity in the short-run, is a non-trivial risk to the US and global economic outlooks over the coming 6-12 months. This risk must be closely watched by investors. The Global Fiscal Response: Comparing Across Countries And Across Measures The flurry of policy announcements from national governments over the past six weeks has led to a great degree of confusion about the size and disposition of the global COVID-19 fiscal response. Our analysis is based heavily on the IMF’s tracking of these measures, albeit with a few adjustments. We also rely on analysis from Bruegel, a prominent European macroeconomic think-tank, as well as our own Geopolitical Strategy team and a variety of news reports. Chart 1 presents the IMF’s estimate of the total fiscal response to the crisis across major countries, as of April 23, broken down into “above-the-line” and “below-the-line” measures. Above-the-line measures are those that directly impact government budget balances (direct fiscal spending and revenue measures, usually tax deferrals), whereas below-the-line measures typically involve balance sheet measures to backstop businesses through capital injections and loan guarantees. Chart 1 makes it clear that the fiscal response of advanced economies is enormous when including both above- and below-the-line measures. By this metric, the response of most developed economies is on the order of 10% of GDP, and well above 30% in the case of Italy and Germany. However, using the sum of above- and below-the-line measures to gauge the fiscal response of any country may not be the ideal approach, given that below-the-line measures are contingent either on the triggering of certain conditions or on the provision of credit to households and firms from the financial system. Below-the-line measures also likely increase the liability position of the private sector, thus raising the odds of negative second-round effects. Chart 1The Global Fiscal Response Is Huge When Including All Measures Instead, Chart 2 compares the countries shown in Chart 1 based only on the IMF’s estimate of above-the-line measures, and with a 4% downward adjustment to Japan’s reported spending to account for previously announced measures.1 The chart shows that countries fall into roughly three categories in terms of the magnitude of their above-the-line response: in excess of 4% of GDP (Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, and Germany), 2-3% (the UK, Brazil, and China), and sub-2% (all other countries shown in the chart, including Spain, Italy, and France). Chart 2The Picture Changes When Excluding Below-The-Line Measures Analysis by Bruegel, provides somewhat different estimates of the global COVID-19 fiscal response for select European countries as well as the US (Table 1). Bruegel breaks down discretionary fiscal measures that have been announced into three categories: those involving an immediate fiscal impulse (new spending and foregone revenues), those related to deferred payments, and other liquidity provisions and guarantees. Bruegel distinguishes between the first and second categories because of their differing impact on government budget balances. Deferrals improve the liquidity positions of individuals and companies but do not cancel their obligations, meaning that they result only in a temporary deterioration in budget balances. Table 1 highlights that Bruegel’s estimates of the sum of above- and below-the-line measures are similar to the IMF’s estimates for the US, the UK, and Spain, but are smaller for Italy and larger for France and Germany (particularly the latter). These differences underscore the extreme uncertainty facing investors, who have to contend not only with varying estimates of the magnitude of government policies but also a torrent of news concerning the evolution of the pandemic itself. Table 1The Type Of Fiscal Response Varies Significantly Across Countries Chart 3 presents our best current estimate of the above-the-line fiscal response of several countries (the measure we deem to be most likely to result in an immediate fiscal impulse), by excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals to the best of our ability.2Chart 3 is based on a combination of data from the IMF, Bruegel analysis, and BCA estimates and news analysis. Chart 3When Narrowly Defined, Several Countries Are Responding Forcefully, But Many Countries Are Not Overall, investors can draw the following conclusions from Charts 1 – 3 and Table 1: When measured as the total of above- and below-the-line measures, nearly all large developed market countries have responded with sizeable measures. Emerging market economies are the clear laggards. Excluding below-the-line measures and using our approach, Australia, the US, China, Germany, Japan, and Canada appear to be spending the most relative to the size of their economies. While Japan’s “headline” fiscal number was inflated by including previously-announced spending, it is still decently-sized after adjustment. Outside of Germany, the rest of Europe appears to be providing a middling or poor above-the-line fiscal response. The UK appears to be providing between 4-5% of GDP as a fiscal impulse, whereas the fiscal response in Italy, Spain, and France looks more like that of emerging markets than of advanced economies. Measuring The Stimulus Against The Shock Despite the substantial amount of new information over the past six weeks concerning the evolution of the pandemic and the attendant policy response, it remains extremely difficult to judge what the balance between shock and stimulus will be and what that means for the profile of growth. Nonetheless, below we present a framework that investors can use to approach the question, and that can be updated as new information emerges concerning the impact of the shutdowns and the extent of the response. Our approach involves analyzing four specific questions: What is the size of the initial shock? What are the likely second-round effects on growth? What is the likely multiplier on fiscal spending? Will the composition of fiscal spending alter its effectiveness? The Size Of The Initial Shock Chart 4 presents the OECD’s estimates of the initial impact of partial or complete shutdowns on economic activity in several countries. The OECD first used a sectoral approach to estimating the impact on activity while lockdowns are in effect, assuming a 100% shutdown for manufacturing of transportation equipment and other personal services, a 50% decline in activity for construction and professional services, and a 75% decline for retail trade, wholesale trade, hotels, restaurants, and air travel. Chart 4 illustrates the total impact of this approach for key developed and emerging economies. Chart 4Annual GDP Will Be 1.5%-2.5% Lower For Each Month Lockdowns Are In Effect The OECD’s approach provides a credible estimate of the impact of aggressive containment policies, and implies that annual real GDP is likely to be 1.5-2.5% lower for major countries for each month that lockdown policies are in effect. This implies that output in major economies is likely to fall 3.5% - 6% for the year from the initial shock alone, assuming an aggressive 10-week lockdown followed by a complete return to normal. Estimating Potential Second Round Effects Chart 5 presents projections from the Bank for International Settlements on the spillover and spillback potential of a 5% initial shock to the level of global GDP from the COVID-19 pandemic (equivalent to a 20% impact on an annualized basis). The chart shows that the cumulative impact of the initial shock rises to 7-8% by the end of this year for the US, euro area, and emerging markets, and 6% for other advanced economies. These estimates account for both domestic second round effects of the initial shock, as well as the reverberating impact of the shock on global trade. Chart 5 also shows the devastating effect that a second wave of COVID-19 emerging in the second half of the year would have after including spillover and spillback effects, assuming that only partial lockdowns would be required. In this scenario, the level of GDP would be 10-12% lower at the end of the year depending on the region, suggesting that investors should be more concerned about the possibility of additional lockdown events than they should be about the after-effects of the first wave of infections (more on this below). Chart 5Additional Lockdown Events Are A Greater Risk Than First Wave After-Effects Will Fiscal Multipliers Be High Or Low? When examining the academic literature on fiscal multipliers, the first impression is that multipliers are likely to be extremely large in the current environment. Tables 2 and 3 present a range of academic multiplier estimates aggregated by the IMF, categorized by the stage of the business cycle and whether the zero lower bound is in effect. The tables tell a clear story: multipliers are typically meaningfully larger during recessions than during expansions, and extremely large when the zero lower bound (ZLB) is in effect. However, there are at least two reasons to expect that the fiscal multiplier during this crisis will not be as large as Tables 2 and 3 suggest. First, it is obviously the case that the multiplier will be low while full or even partial lockdowns are in effect, as consumers will not have the ability to fully act in response to stimulative measures. This will be partially offset by a burst of spending once lockdowns are removed, but the empirical multiplier estimates during recessions shown in Table 2 have not been measured during a period when constraints to spending have been in effect, and we suspect that this will have at least somewhat of a dampening effect on the efficacy of fiscal spending relative to previous recessions (even once regulations concerning store closures are removed). Table 2Fiscal Multipliers Are Much Larger During Recessions Than Expansions Table 3Models Suggest The Multiplier Is Quite High At The Zero Lower Bound Second, Table 3 likely overestimates the multiplier at the ZLB. These estimates have been based on models rather than empirical analysis, and appear to be in reference to the prevention of large subsequent declines in output following an initial shock. The modeled finding of a large multiplier at the ZLB occurs because increased deficit spending will not lead to higher policy rates in a scenario where the neutral rate has fallen below zero. But it seems difficult to believe that the fiscal multiplier during ZLB episodes, defined as the impact of fiscal spending on the path of output relative to the initial shock (not relative to a counterfactual additional shock), is larger than the highest empirical estimates of the multiplier during recessions. The only circumstance in which we can envision this being the case is an environment where long-term bond yields are capped and remain at zero, alongside short-term interest rates, as the economy improves. The IMF has provided a simple rule of thumb approach to estimating the fiscal multiplier for a given country. The IMF’s approach involves first estimating the multiplier under normal circumstances based on a series of key structural characteristics that have been shown to influence the economy’s response to fiscal shocks. Then, the “normal” multiplier is adjusted higher or lower depending on the stage of the business cycle, and whether monetary policy is constrained by the ZLB. For the US, the IMF’s approach suggests that a multiplier range of 1.1 – 1.6 is reasonable, assuming the highest cyclical adjustment but no ZLB adjustment (see Box 1 for a description of the calculation). Given the unprecedented nature of this crisis, we are inclined to use the low end of this range (1.1) as a conservative assumption when judging whether fiscal responses to the crisis are sufficient. For investors, this means that governments should be aiming, at a minimum, for fiscal packages that are roughly 90% of the size of the expected shock of their economies, using our US fiscal multiplier assumption as a guide. Box 1The 'Bucket' Approach To Estimating Fiscal Multipliers The Composition Of The Response: Helping Or Hurting? The last of our four questions deals with the issue of composition and whether the form of a country’s fiscal response is likely to alter its effectiveness. We implicitly addressed the first element of composition, whether measures are above-the-line or below-the-line, by comparing Charts 1 - 3 on pages 3-5. Our view is that above-the-line measures are far more important than below-the-line measures, as the former provides direct income and liquidity support. Below-the-line measures are also important, as they are likely to help reduce business failure and household bankruptcies. The fiscal multiplier on these measures has to be above zero, but it is likely to be much lower than that of an above-the-line response. Chart 6Much Of The US Fiscal Response Is Going To Households And Small Businesses The second element of composition concerns the appropriate distribution of aid among households, businesses, and local governments. On this particular question, it remains extremely challenging to analyze the issue on a global basis, owing to a frequent lack of an explicit breakdown of fiscal measures by recipient. For now, we limit our distributional analysis to the US, and hope to expand our approach to other countries in future research. Chart 6 presents a breakdown of the US fiscal response by recipient, which informs the following observations. Households: Chart 6 highlights that US households will receive approximately $600 billion as part of the CARES Act, roughly half of which will occur through direct payments (i.e. “stimulus checks”) and another 40% from expanded unemployment benefits. In cases where the federal household response has been criticized by members of the public as inadequate, it has often been compared to income support programs of other countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) is a good example of a program that seems, at first blush, to be superior: it provides $2,000 CAD in direct payments to individuals for a 4 week period, for up to 16 weeks (i.e. a maximum of $8,000 CAD), which seems better than a $1,200 USD stimulus check. However, Table 4 highlights that this comparison is mostly spurious. First, the CERB is not universal, in that it is only available to those who have stopped or will stop working due to COVID-19. At a projected cost of $35 billion CAD, the CERB program represents 1.5% of Canadian GDP. By comparison, $600 billion USD in overall household support represents 2.75% of US GDP; this number drops to 1.75% when only considering support to those who have lost their jobs, but this is still higher as a share of the economy than in Canada. Moreover, there is little question that Congress is prepared to pass more stimulus for additional weeks of required assistance.   Table 4US Household Relief Is Just As Generous As Seemingly Better Programs The discrepancy between the perception and reality of US household sector support appears to be rooted in the speed of payments. Speed is the one area where Canada’s household sector response appears to have legitimately outperformed the US; CERB payments are received by applicants within three business days for those registered for electronic payment, and in some cases they are received the following day. By contrast, it has taken some time for US States to start paying out the additional $600 USD per week in expanded unemployment benefits, but as of the middle of last week nearly all states had started making these payments.   Firms: On April 16 the Small Business Administration announced that the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) had expended its initial budget of $350 billion. While additional funds of $320 billion have subsequently been approved (plus $60 billion in small business emergency loans and grants), the run on PPP funds was, to some investors, an implicit sign that the CARES Act was inadequately structured.   Table 5Help For Small Businesses Will Replace A Significant Amount Of Lost Income However, the fact that the initial funds ran out in mid-April simply reflects the reality that social distancing measures had been in place for 3-4 weeks by the time that the program began taking applications. Table 5 highlights that $350 billion was large enough to replace nearly 90% of lost small business income for one month, assuming that overall small business revenue has fallen by 50% and that small businesses account for 44% of total GDP. The table also shows that a combined total of $730 billion is enough to replace almost 80% of lost small business income for 10 weeks, given these assumptions. With loan forgiveness at least partially tied to small businesses retaining employees on payroll for an 8-week period, the PPP is also essentially an indirect form of household income support. State & Local Governments: The magnitude of support for state & local (S&L) governments appears to be the least-well designed element of the US fiscal response.  The CARES Act provides for $170 billion in support to S&L, which at first blush seems large as it is approximately 25% of S&L current receipts in Q4 2019 (i.e. it stands to cover a 25% loss in revenue for one quarter). However, this does not account for the significant reported increase in S&L costs to combat the pandemic, nor does it provide S&L governments with any revenue certainty beyond June 30 when most of the assistance from CARES must be spent.   Chart 7Persistent State & Local Austerity Must Be Avoided This Time Unlike households or firms, who also face significant uncertainty, nearly all US states are subject to balanced budget requirements, which prevent them from spending more than they collect in revenue. When faced even with projected revenue losses in the second half of this year and into 2021, states are likely to aggressively and immediately cut costs in order to avoid budgetary shortfalls. Chart 7 highlights that S&L austerity was a significant element of the persistent drag on real GDP growth from overall government expenditure and investment in the first 3-4 years of the post-GFC economic expansion. A repeat of this episode would significantly raise the odds of an “L-type” recession (and thus should certainly be avoided). This is why Congress is moving to pass larger state and local aid. Our Geopolitical Strategy team argues that neither President Trump nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will prevent the additional financial assistance that US states will require, despite their rhetoric about states going bankrupt.3 A near-term, temporary standoff may occur, but Washington will almost certainly act to provide at least additional short-term funding if state employment starts to fall due to budget pressure. So while we recognize that the state & local component of the US fiscal response is currently lacking, it does not seem likely to represent a serious threat to an eventual economic recovery in the US. Putting It All Together: Will It Be Enough? Chart 8 reproduces Chart 3 with an assumed fiscal multiplier of 1.1, and with shaded regions denoting the likely initial and total impact on GDP from aggressive containment measures (based on the OECD and BIS’ estimates). Based on our analysis of the US fiscal response, we make no adjustments for the composition of the measures beyond defining the fiscal response on a narrow basis (i.e. excluding loans, guarantees, and non-specified revenue deferrals). The chart highlights that the narrowly-defined fiscal response of three key economies driving global demand, the US, China, and Germany, is either at the upper end or above the total impact range. Thus, for now, we tentatively conclude that the fiscal response that has or will happen appears to be adequate to prevent the direct and indirect effects of the lockdowns from causing an “L-shaped” event, especially since Chart 8 explicitly excludes below-the-line measures. Chart 8Several Important Countries Seem To Be Doing Enough, But More Is Needed In Europe Ex-Germany However, there are two important caveats to this conclusion. First, Chart 8 makes it clear that measures in France, Italy, and Spain are still lacking and must be stepped up. Italy and France have provided a substantial below-the-line response, but it is far from clear that a debt-based response or one that only temporarily improves access to cash for households and businesses will be enough to prevent a prolonged fallout from the sudden stop in economic activity and income. Second, our analysis suggests that the announced fiscal measures will not be sufficient if the global economy faces a W-shaped shock caused by another round of aggressive containment measures later this year or if these measures remain in place at half-strength for many months. This underscores how sensitive the adequacy of announced fiscal measures are to the amount of time economies remain under full or partial lockdown. As such, it is crucial for investors to have some sense of when advanced economies may be able to sustainably end aggressive containment measures. When Can The Lockdowns Sustainably End? Several countries and US states have already announced some reductions in their restrictions, but the question of how comprehensive these measures can be without risking a second period of prolonged stay-at-home orders looms large. Table 6 presents two different methods of estimating sustainable lockdown end dates for several advanced economies. First, we use the “70-day rule” that appears to have succeeded in ending the outbreak in Wuhan, calculated from the first day that either school or work closures took effect in each country.4 Second, using a linear trend from the peak 5-day moving average of confirmed cases and fatalities, we calculate when confirmed cases and fatalities may reach zero. Table 6By Re-Opening Soon, The US May Be Risking A Damaging Second Wave The table highlights that these methods generally prescribe a reopening date of May 31 or earlier, with a few exceptions. The UK’s confirmed case count and fatality trends are still too shallow to suggest an end of May re-opening, as is the case in Canada. In the case of Sweden, no projections can truly be made based on the 70-day rule because closures never formally occurred. But the most problematic point highlighted in Table 6 is that US newly confirmed cases are only currently projected to fall to zero as of February 2021. Chart 9 highlights that while new cases per capita in New York state are much higher than in the rest of the country, they are declining whereas they have yet to clearly peak elsewhere. Cross-country case comparisons can be problematic due to differences in testing, but with several US states having already begun the gradual re-opening process, this underscores that US policymakers may be allowing a dangerous rise in the odds of a secondary infection wave. Chart 9No Clear Downtrend Yet Outside Of New York State Investment Conclusions Our core conclusion that an “L-shaped” global recession is likely to be avoided is generally bullish for equities on a 12-month horizon. However, uncertainty remains extremely elevated, and the recent rise in stock prices in the US (and globally) has been at least partially based on the expectation that lockdowns will sustainably end soon, which at least in the case of the US appears to be a premature conclusion given the current lack of large-scale virus testing capacity. As such, we are less optimistic towards risky assets tactically, and would recommend a neutral stance over a 0-3 month horizon. As noted above, our cross-country comparison of narrowly-defined fiscal measures suggested that euro area countries (excluding Germany) will likely have to do more in order to prevent a long period of below-trend growth. In the case of highly-indebted countries like Italy, this raises the additional question of whether a significantly increased debt-to-GDP ratio stemming from an aggressive fiscal impulse will cause another euro area sovereign debt crisis similar to what occurred from 2010-2014. Chart 10Italy's Debt Sustainability Hurdle Is Lower Than It Used To Be Government debts are sustainable as long as interest rates remain below economic growth, and from this vantage point Italy should spend as much as needed in order to ensure that nominal growth remains above current long-term government bond yields. Chart 10 highlights that, despite a widening spread versus German bunds, Italian 10-year yields are much lower today than they were during the worst of the euro area crisis, meaning that the debt sustainability hurdle is technically lower. However, we have also noted in previous reports that high-debt countries often face multiple government debt equilibria; if global investors become fearful that that high-debt countries may not be able to repay their obligations without defaulting or devaluing, then a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur via sharply higher interest rates (Chart 11). Chart 11Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort For now, we view the risk of a renewed Italian debt crisis from significantly increased spending related to COVID-19 as minimal, and it is certainly lower than the status quo as the latter risks causing a sharp gap between nominal growth and bond yields like what occurred from 2010 – 2014. First, Chart 12 highlights that Italy has succeeded in somewhat reducing its structural balance, which averaged -4% for many years prior to the euro area crisis. Assuming an adequate global response to the crisis and that economic recovery ensues, it is not clear why global bond investors would be concerned that Italian structural deficits would persistently widen. Second, the ECB is purchasing Italian government bonds as part of its new Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program, which will help cap the level of Italian yields. Third, Chart 13 shows what will occur to Italy’s government debt service ratio (general government net interest payments as a percent of GDP) in a scenario where Italy’s gross debt to GDP rises a full 20 percentage points and the ratio of net interest payments to debt remains unchanged. The chart shows that while debt service will rise, it will still be lower than at any point prior to 2015. Chart 12Italy's Structural Budget Balance Has Improved Chart 13Italy's Debt Service Ratio Won't Go Up Much, If Yields Are Unchanged   So not only should Italy spend significantly more to combat the severely damaging nature of the pandemic, we would expect that Italian spreads would fall, not rise, in such an outcome.   Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “Skeptical economists call Japan’s largest-ever stimulus package ‘puffed-up’, Keita Nakamura, The Japan Times, April 8, 2020. 2 Please note that Chart 3 differs somewhat from a chart that has been frequently shown by our Geopolitical Strategy service. Both charts are accurate; they simply employ different definitions of the fiscal response to the pandemic. 3 Indeed, McConnell has already walked back his comments that states should consider bankruptcy. President Trump is constrained by the election, as are Senate Republicans, and the House Democrats control the purse strings. Hence more state and local funding is forthcoming. At best for the Republicans, there may be provisions to ensure it goes to the COVID-19 crisis rather than states’ unfunded pension obligations. See Geopolitical Strategy, “Drowning In Oil (GeoRisk Update),” April 24, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 School and work closure dates have been sources from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores  

Highlights Europe’s dirty little secret: Euro area debt is already mutualised. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds, and overweight the euro on a structural (2-year plus) horizon. ESM plus ECB plus OMT equals a compromise solution to fund stimulus at a mutualised euro area interest rate. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. Spain’s high early peak in morbidity means that it has taken its pain upfront, at least compared to other countries.  Investment implication: upgrade Spain’s IBEX to a tactical overweight – and remove it from the cyclical underweight basket. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Underperformances Of China, Italy And Spain Were A Mirror-Image Of Their Covid-19 Morbidity Curves More About Morbidity Curves Most analyses of the pandemic tend to focus on the grim daily mortality statistics. Yet the key to the pandemic’s evolution is not its mortality rate, but rather its morbidity (severe illness) rate. This is because, without a vaccine, the total area underneath the morbidity curve is fixed. The cumulative number of people who will fall severely ill is pre-determined at the outset (Figures 1-3). Figure I-1The Area Under The Morbidity Curve Is Fixed, A High First Peak Means A Low Second Peak Figure I-2A Low First Peak Means An Extended First Peak…   Figure I-3…Or A High Second Peak Very optimistically assuming a Covid-19 morbidity rate of 1 percent, and that 65 percent of the population must get infected to exhaust the pandemic, we know that Covid-19 will ultimately make 0.65 percent of the population severely ill. Absent a vaccine, this number is set in stone. But the number of deaths is not set in stone. It depends on the availability of emergency medical treatment for those that are severely ill. For Covid-19 this means access to ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU). Yet even the best equipped countries only have ICUs for 0.03 percent of the population. Therefore, the emergency treatment must be rationed either by supply or by demand. Without a Covid-19 vaccine, we cannot change the cumulative number of people who will become severely ill. Rationing by supply means that we must deny emergency treatment to the severely ill – not just Covid-19 patients but victims of, say, heart attacks or car crashes. Accept more deaths. Rationing by demand means that we must flatten the demand (morbidity) curve so that demand is always satisfied by the limited ICU supply. During the pandemics of 1918-19 and 1957, countries could ration emergency medical treatment by supply. Not in 2020. In an era of universal healthcare, everybody is entitled to, and expects to get, emergency medical care. Which means we must ration emergency medical treatment by demand. As such, we must analyse the 2020 response differently to the responses in 1918-19 and 1957. To repeat, without a vaccine, we cannot change the area under the morbidity curve. There is no way of escaping this truth. A low first peak requires a very elongated peak or a high second peak (Chart I-2). Conversely, countries that have suffered a high first peak will need a shorter peak and small (or no) second peak. Chart I-2Japan's Early Stabilisation Was A False Dawn Turning to an equity market implication, the underperformances of highly cyclical and domestically exposed Spain and Italy have closely tracked their morbidity curves (Chart I-1). Given that both countries have suffered very high first peaks in morbidity, the strong implication is that they have taken their pain upfront – at least compared to other countries. In the case of Spain, the market is also technically oversold (see Fractal Trading System). Investment implication: upgrade Spain’s IBEX to a tactical overweight – and remove it from the cyclical underweight basket. How Europe Could Unite Europe is dithering on its fiscal response to the pandemic. Specifically, Germany and the Netherlands are pushing back against the concept of mutualised euro area debt in the form of ‘corona-bonds’. But a pandemic is an act of nature, an indiscriminate exogenous shock. What is the point of the economic and monetary union if Italy must fund its response to an act of nature at the Italian 10-year yield of 1.5 percent rather than the euro area 10-year yield of 0 percent? (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4) Chart I-3To Fight An Act Of Nature Why Should Italy Borrow At A Higher Rate... Chart I-4...When It Could Borrow At A Lower Mutualised Rate? The good news is there is a compromise solution to fund stimulus at a mutualised interest rate. It uses the euro area’s €500 billion bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). But the compromise solution carries two problems which need mitigation. First, ESM credit lines come with conditionality. Italy would rightly balk if it were shackled like Greece, Portugal, and Ireland were after the euro debt crisis. Luckily, the ESM is likely to regard the current ‘act of nature’ crisis very differently to the debt crisis and impose only minimum and appropriate conditionality – for example, that credit lines should be used for healthcare and social welfare spending. Second, ESM credit lines come with a stigma. Taking fright that Italy is tapping the ESM, the bond market might drive up the yields on Italian BTPs. If this pushed up Italy’s overall funding rate, it would defeat the purpose of using the ESM in the first place. ESM plus ECB plus OMT equals a compromise solution to borrow at a mutualised interest rate. The hope is that the bond market, realising that Italy is using the bailout facility to counter an act of nature, would not drive up BTP yields. But if it did, the ECB could counter this by buying BTPs. One option would be to use its Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) facility. Set up during the euro debt crisis, the OMT’s specific function is to counter bond market attacks when they are not justified by the economic fundamentals. In other words, to prevent a liquidity crisis escalating into a solvency crisis. Thereby, ESM plus ECB plus OMT equals a compromise solution to fund stimulus at a mutualised euro area interest rate. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. Europe’s Dirty Little Secret Outwardly, Germany and the Netherlands are reluctant to go down the slippery slope to mutualised euro area debt. But here’s the dirty little secret they don’t want you to know. Euro area debt is already mutualised. The stealth mutualisation has happened via the Target2 banking imbalance which now stands at €1.5 trillion. This imbalance is an accounting identity showing that Italy is owed ‘German euros’ via its large quantity of bank deposits in German banks while Germany is symmetrically owed ‘Italian euros’ via its large effective holding of Italian government bonds. The imbalance is irrelevant if a German euro equals an Italian euro. But if Italy defaulted on its bonds – by repaying them in a reinstated and devalued lira – then Target2 means that Germany must pick up the bill (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Target2 Means That If Italy Defaults, Germany Picks Up The Bill The Target2 imbalance is the result of the ECB’s QE program, in which the central bank has bought hundreds of billions of Italian bonds. If Italy repaid those bonds in a devalued lira, then the ECB would become insolvent, and the central bank’s remaining shareholders would have to plug the hole. The biggest shareholder would be Germany. Could Germany force Italy to repay its bonds in euros? No. According to a legal principle called ‘lex monetae’ Italy can repay its debt in its sovereign currency, whatever that is. Meanwhile, because of the fragility of the Italian banking system, the Italians who sold the bonds to the ECB deposited the cash in German banks. Legally, these depositors must be paid back in whatever is the German currency. Euro area debt is already mutualised. If euro area debt is already mutualised, why do policymakers continue to pretend that it isn’t? There are three reasons. First no policymaker would want to publicise that Germany is now on the hook if Italy left the euro. Second, no policymaker would want to publicise that the ECB has put Germany in this position (Chart I-6). Chart I-6ECB QE Has Created The Target2 Imbalance Third, and most important, policymakers would point out that the mutualisation of debt only happens if the euro breaks up. They would argue that because the euro is irreversible, the debt is not mutualised. In fact, their argument is completely back to front. The truth is: Because euro area debt is now mutualised, the euro has become irreversible. Investment implication: Overweight Italian BTPs, underweight German bunds, and overweight the euro on a structural (2-year plus) horizon. Fractal Trading System* As already discussed, this week’s recommended trade is long Spain’s IBEX 35 versus the Euro Stoxx 600. The profit target is 3 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. Meanwhile our other trade, long Australia versus New Zealand has moved into a 2 percent profit. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 66 percent. Chart I-7IBEX 35 Vs. EUROSTOXX 600 When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations