Euro Area

    Highlights Risk assets continue to ignore the dire state of the economy. “Don’t fight the Fed” will dictate investment policy for the coming months. Populism and supply-chain diversification will shape the world after COVID-19. Global stimulus will result in higher long-term inflation when the labor market returns to full employment. Asset prices are not ready for higher inflation rates. Precious metals, especially silver, will offer inflation protection. Stocks should structurally outperform bonds, even if they generate lower returns than in the past. Tech will continue to rise for now, but this sector will suffer when inflation turns higher. Feature Despite the continued collapse in economic activity, the S&P 500 remains resilient, bolstered by the largesse of the Federal Reserve and US government, and generous stimulus packages in other major economies. Stocks will likely climb even higher with this backdrop, but a violent second wave of COVID-19 infections may derail the scenario in the near term. The biggest risk, which is long-term in nature, is rising inflation. Public debt ratios will skyrocket in the G-10 and many emerging markets. Private debt loads, which are elevated in most countries, will also increase. Add rising populism and ageing populations into this mix and the incentive to push prices higher and reduce real debt loads becomes too enticing. Long-term investors must be wary. For the time being, overweight equities relative to bonds, but the specter of rising inflation suggests that growth stocks (e.g. tech) will not offer attractive long-term returns. Investors with an eye on multi-year returns should use the ongoing surge in growth stocks to strategically switch their portfolios toward small-cap equities, traditional cyclicals and precious metals. Economic Freefall Continues Most economic indicators paint a dismal picture for the US. Industrial activity is suffering tremendously. In April, industrial production collapsed by 15%, a pace matching the depth of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). The ISM New Orders-to-Inventories ratio remains extremely weak with no glimmer of a rebound in IP in May. The numbers for trucking activity and railway freight are equally poor. Chart I-1A Worried Consumer Saves The US labor market has not been this ill since the 1930s. 20.5 million jobs vanished in April and the unemployment rate soared to 14.7%, despite a 2.5 percentage point decline in the participation rate. The number of employees involuntarily working in part-time positions has surged by 5.9 million, which has hiked up the broader U-6 unemployment rate to 22.8%. Wage growth has rebounded smartly to 7.7%, but this is an illusion. Average hourly earnings rose only because low-wage workers in the leisure and hospitality fields bore the brunt of the pain, accounting for 37% of layoffs. The worst news is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) classifies any worker explicitly fired due to COVID-19 as temporarily laid off, but without a vaccine it is highly unlikely that employment in the leisure, hospitality or airline sectors will normalize anytime soon. Unsurprisingly, lockdowns have limited the ability of households to spend. Americans have boosted their savings rate to 13.1%, the highest level in 39 years, as they worry about catching a potentially deadly illness, losing their jobs, watching their incomes fall, or all of the above (Chart I-1). This double hit to both employment and consumer confidence sparked a 22% collapse in retail sales on an annual basis in April, the worst reading on record. Putting it all together, real GDP contracted at a 4.8% quarterly annualized rate in Q1 2020 and the Congressional Budget Office expects second-quarter annual growth to plummet to -37.7%. The New York Fed’s Weekly Economic Index suggests a more muted contraction of 11.1% (Chart I-2), which would still represent a post-war record. Investors must look beyond the gloom. The economic weakness is not limited to the US. In Europe and in emerging markets, retail sales and auto sales are disappearing at an unparalleled pace. Industrial production readings in those economies have been catastrophic and manufacturing PMIs are still in deeply contractionary territory. As a result, our Global Economic A/D line and our Global Synchronicity indicator continues to flash intense weakness (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The Worst Is Still To Come Chart I-3Dismal Growth, Everywhere   Chart I-4China Leads The Way Investors must look beyond the gloom. China’s experience with COVID-19 is instructive despite questions regarding the number of cases reported. China was the first country to witness the painful impact of COVID-19 and the quarantines needed to fight the disease. It was also the first country to control the virus’s spread and, most importantly, to escape the lockdown, along with being the first to enact economic stimulatory measures. The results are clear: industrial production, domestic new orders, and to a lesser extent, retail sales, are all experiencing V-shaped recoveries (Chart I-4). Even Chinese yields are rising, despite interest rate cuts by the People’s Bank of China. Accommodative Policy Matters Most The global policy “put option” is still in full force, which is boosting asset prices. A 41% rally in the median US stock reflects both a massive amount of funds inundating the financial system and a recovery that will take hold in the coming 12 months in response to this stimulus and the end of lockdowns. Global monetary policies have been even more aggressive than after the GFC. Interest rates have fallen as quickly and as broadly as they did around the Lehman bankruptcy. Moreover, unorthodox policy measures have become the norm (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Easy Policy, Everywhere In China, credit generation is quickly accelerating and has reached 28% of GDP, the highest in 2 years. Moreover, policymakers are emphasizing the need to create 9 million jobs in cities and keep the unemployment rate at 6%. Consequently, the recent rebound in construction activity will continue because it is a perfect medium to absorb excess workers. The ever-expanding quotas for local government special bonds to CNY3.75 trillion will also ensure that infrastructure spending energizes any recovery. Therefore, we expect Chinese imports of raw materials and machinery to accelerate into the second half of the year. The country’s orders of machine tools from Japan have already bottomed, which bodes well for overall Japanese orders (Chart I-6). Europe has also moved in the right direction. Government support continues to expand and combined public deficits will reach EUR 0.9 trillion, or 8.5% of GDP. Governmental guarantees have reached at least EUR1.4 trillion. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank’s balance sheet is swelling more quickly than during either the GFC or the euro area crisis (Chart I-7). Unsurprisingly, European shadow rates have collapsed to -7.6% and European financial conditions are the easiest they have been in 8 years. Chart I-6Will China's Rebound Matter? Chart I-7The ECB Is Aggressive   More importantly, COVID-19 has broken the taboo of common bond issuance in Europe. Last week, Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and EC President von der Leyen hatched a plan to issue common bonds that will finance a EUR 750 billion recovery fund as part of the European Commission Multiannual Financial Framework. The EC will then allocate EUR 500 billion of grants (not loans) to EU nations as long as they adhere to European principles. The unified front by the three most senior European politicians reflects elevated support for the EU among all European nations and an understanding that economic ruin in the smaller nations could capsize the core nations (Chart I-8). Hence, fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Unsurprisingly, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Greek bond spreads all narrowed significantly following the announcement. Chart I-8The Forces That Bind Chart I-9Negative Rates Are Here, Sort Of US policymakers have abandoned any semblance of orthodoxy. The Fed’s programs announced so far have lifted its balance sheet by $2.9 trillion and could generate an expansion to $11 trillion by year-end. Moreover, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has highlighted that there is “no limit” to what the Fed can do with its unconventional policy apparatus. The nature of the US funding market makes negative rates very dangerous and, therefore, highly doubtful in that country. Nonetheless, the Fed is willing to buy more paper from the public and private sectors to push the shadow rate and real interest rates further into negative territory (Chart I-9). Moreover, the Federal government has already bumped up the deficit by $3 trillion and the House has passed another $3 trillion in spending. Senate Republicans will pass some of this program to protect themselves in November. According to BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy service, a total escalation in the federal deficit of $5 trillion (or 23% of 2020 GDP) is extremely likely this year. Chart I-10The Fed Is Monetizing The Deficit Combined fiscal and monetary policy in the US will have a more invigorating impact on the recovery than the measures passed in 2008-09. They represent a larger share of output than during the GFC (10.5% versus 6% of GDP for the government spending and 15.2% versus 8.3% for the Fed’s balance sheet expansion). Moreover, the Fed is buying a much greater percentage of the Treasury’s issuance than during the GFC (Chart I-10). Therefore, the Fed is much closer to monetizing government debt than it was 11 years ago. The combined monetary and fiscal easing should result in a larger fiscal multiplier because the private sector is not financing as much of the government’s largesse. Thus, the increase in the private sector’s savings rate should be short-lived and the current account deficit will widen to reflect the greater fiscal outlays. Low real rates and a larger balance-of-payments disequilibrium should weaken the dollar which will ease US financial conditions further. A Trough In Inflation Maintaining incredibly easy monetary and fiscal conditions as the economy reopens will lead to higher inflation when the labor market reaches full employment. Core CPI has collapsed to 1.4% on an annual basis and to -2.4% on a three-month annualized basis, the lowest reading on record. The breakdown of the CPI report is equally dreadful (Chart I-11). However, CPI understates inflation because the basket measured by the BLS includes many areas of commerce currently not frequented by consumers. Items actually purchased by households, such as food, have experienced accelerating inflation in recent months. Fiscal risk-sharing will increasingly become the norm in Europe. Beyond this technicality, the most important factor behind the anticipated structural uptick in inflation is a large debt load burdening the global economy. Total nonfinancial debt in the US stands at 254% of GDP, 262% in the euro area, 380% in Japan, 301% in Canada, 233% in Australia, 293% in Sweden and 194% in emerging markets (Chart I-12). Historically, the easiest method for policymakers to decrease the burden of liabilities is inflation; the current political climate increases the odds of that outcome. Chart I-11Weak Core Chart I-12Record Debt, Everywhere   Households in the G-10 and emerging markets are angry. Growing inequalities, coupled with income immobility, have created dissatisfaction with the economic system (Chart I-13). Before the GFC, US households could gorge on debt to support their spending patterns, and inequalities went unnoticed. After the crisis revealed weakness in the household sector, banks tightened their credit standards and consumption slowed, constrained by a paltry expansion of the median household income. As a consequence, the American public increasingly supports left-wing economic policies (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Inequalities + Immobility = Anger Chart I-14The US Population's Shift To The Left COVID-19 is exacerbating the population’s discontent and highlighting economic disparities. The recession is hitting poor households in the US harder than the general population or highly skilled white-collar employees who can easily telecommute. Millennials, the largest demographic group in the US, are also irate. Their lifetime earnings were already lagging that of their parents because most millennials entered the job market in the aftermath of the GFC.1 Their income and balance sheet prospects were beginning to improve just as the pandemic shock struck. Finally, in response to the lockdowns and school closures caused by COVID-19, young families with children have to juggle permanent childcare and daily work demands from employers, resulting in a lack of separation between home and office.2  Economic populism will generate a negative supply shock, which will push up prices (Diagram I-1). BCA has espoused the theme of de-globalization since 20143 and COVID-19 will accelerate this trend. Firms do not want fragile supply chains that fall victim to random shocks; instead, they are looking to diversify their sources (Chart I-15). Additionally, workers and households want protection from foreign competition and perceived unfair trade practices. This sentiment is evident in a lack of trust toward China (Chart I-16). China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business (Chart I-17). Last year’s Sino-US trade war was a precursor of events to come. Diagram I-1The Inflationary Impact Of A Stifled Supply Side Chart I-15COVID-19 Accelerates The Desire To Repatriate Production Chart I-16China As A Political Piñata Chart I-17The Cost Of Doing International Business Will Rise Chart I-18A Problem For Productivity The rate of capital stock accumulation does not bode well for the supply side of the economy. Productivity trails the path of capex, with a long time lag. The 10-year moving average of non-residential investment in the US bottomed three years ago. Its subsequent uptick should enhance average productivity. However, the growth of the real net capital stock per employee remains weak and will not strengthen because companies are curtailing spending in the recession. Moreover, the efficiency of the capital stock is well below its long-term average and probably will not mend if supply chains are made less efficient. These factors are negative for productivity and thus, the capacity to expand the supply side of the economy (Chart I-18). Finally, a significant share of capital stock is stranded and uneconomical. The airline industry is a good example. Going forward, regulations will keep the middle row seats empty. Fewer filled seats imply that the capital stock has lost significant value, which creates a negative supply shock for the industry. To break even, airlines will have to raise the price of fares. IATA estimates that fares will increase by 43%, 49% and 54% on North American, European and Asian routes, respectively (Table I-1). The same analysis can be applied to restaurants, hotels, cinemas, etc. – industries that will have to curtail their supplies and change their practices in response to COVID-19. Table I-1The Inflationary Impact Of Supply Cuts Chat I-19Pandemics Boost Wages While rising populism will hurt the supply side of the economy, it will also hike demand. Redistribution is an outcome of populism. Corporate tax hikes hurt rich households that receive more than 50% of their income from profits. High marginal tax rates on high earners will also curtail their disposable income. Shifting a bigger share of national income to the middle class will depress the savings rate and boost demand. It is estimated that the middle class’s marginal propensity to spend is 90% compared with 60% for richer households. In fact, in the past 40 years, the shift in income distribution has curtailed demand by 3% of GDP. Pandemics also increase real wages. Òscar Jordà, Sanjay Singh, and Alan Taylor demonstrated that European real wages accelerated following pandemics (Chart I-19). Fewer willing workers contributed to the climb in real wages by decreasing the supply of labor. Higher real wages are positive for consumption. China-bashing will become a mainstay of American politics and rising tariffs will continue to increase the cost of doing business. Populism will also put upward pressure on public spending. Governments globally and in the US are bailing out the private sector to an even larger extent than they did after the GFC. Discontent with expanding inequalities and the perceived lack of accountability of the corporate sector4 will push the government to be more involved in economic management than it was after 2008. Moreover, the post-2008 environment showed that austerity was negative for private sector income growth and the economic welfare of the middle class (Chart I-20). Thus, government spending and deficits as a share of GDP will be structurally higher for the coming decade. Higher deficits mechanically boost aggregate demand which is inflationary if the advance of aggregate supply is sluggish. Chat I-20Austerity Hurts Central banks will likely enable these inflationary dynamics. The Fed knows that it has missed its objective by a cumulative 4% since former Chairman Ben Bernanke set an official inflation target of 2% in 2012. Thus, it has lost credibility in its ability to generate 2% inflation, which is why the 10-year breakeven rate stands at 1.1% and not within the 2.3%-2.5% range that is consistent with its mandate. Moreover, the Fed is worried that the immediate deflationary impact of COVID-19 will further depress inflation expectations and reinforce low realized inflation. This logic partly explains why the Fed currently recommends more stimulus and the Federal Open Market Committee will be reluctant to remove accommodation anytime soon. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment. Central banks may fall victim to growing populism. Both the Democrats and Republicans want control over the US Fed. If Congress changes the Fed’s mandate, there would be great consequences for inflation. Prior to the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, the Fed’s mandate was to foster full employment conditions without any explicit mention of inflation. Therefore, the Fed kept the unemployment rate well below NAIRU for most of the post-war period. This tight labor market was a key ingredient behind the inflationary outbreak of the 1970s. After the reform act explicitly imposed a price stability directive on top of the Fed’s employment mandate, the unemployment rate spent a much larger share of time above NAIRU, which contributed to the structural decline in inflation after 1982 (Chart I-21). Chat I-21The Fed's Mandate Matters Finally, demographics will also feed inflationary pressures. The global support ratio peaked in 2014 as the number of workers per dependent decreased due to ageing of the population in the West and China (Chart I-22). A declining support ratio depresses the growth of the supply side of the economy because the dependents continue to consume. In today’s world, dependents are retirees, who have higher healthcare spending needs. This healthcare spending will accrue additional government spending. Moreover, it will continue to push up healthcare inflation, which will contribute to higher overall inflation (Chart I-23). Chat I-22Demographics: From Deflation To Inflation Chat I-23Aging Will Feed Healthcare Inflation   Bottom Line: COVID-19 has highlighted inequalities in the population and will accelerate a move toward populism that started four years ago. Consequently, the supply side of the economy will grow more slowly than it did in prior decades, while greater government interventions and redistributionist policies will boost aggregate demand. Additionally, monetary policy will probably stay easy for too long and demographic factors will compound the supply/demand mismatch. Inflation will likely move toward 4-5% after the US economy regains full employment, but will not surge to 1970s levels. Investment Implications Chat I-24Breakevens Will Listen To Commodities Extremely accommodative economic policy and a shift to higher inflation will dominate asset markets for the next five years or more. Breakevens in the G-10 are pricing in permanently subdued inflation for the coming decade, which creates a large re-pricing opportunity if inflation troughs when the labor market reaches full employment. Investors cannot wait for inflation to turn the corner to bet on higher breakevens. After the GFC, core CPI bottomed in October 2010, but US breakevens hit their floor at 0.15% in December 2008. Instead, a rebound in commodity prices and a turnaround in the global economic outlook may signal when investors should buy breakevens (Chart I-24). Chat I-25Deleterious US Balance Of Payments Dynamics A repricing of inflation expectations will depress real rates. Central banks want to see inflation expectations normalize towards 2.3%-2.5% before signaling an end to accommodation. Moreover, political pressures and high debt loads will likely loosen their reaction functions to higher breakeven. As a result, real interest rates will decline because nominal ones will not rise by as much as inflation expectations. This is exactly what central banks want to achieve because it will foster a stronger recovery. Our US fixed-income strategists favor TIPS over nominal Treasurys. The dollar will probably depreciate in the post-COVID-19 environment. As we wrote last month, the US is the most aggressive reflator among major economies. The twin deficit will expand while US real rates will remain depressed. This is very negative for the USD, especially in an environment where the US money supply is outpacing global money supply (Chart I-25).5 Additionally, Chinese reflation will stimulate global industrial production, which normally hurts the dollar. EM currencies are cheap enough that long-term investors should begin to bet on them (Chart I-26), especially if global inflation structurally shifts higher. Precious metals win from the combination of higher inflation, lower real rates and a weaker dollar. However, silver is more attractive than gold. Unlike the yellow metal, it trades at a discount to the long-term inflation trend (Chart I-27). Moreover, silver has more industrial uses, especially in the solar panel and computing areas. Thus, the post-COVID-19 recovery and the need to double up supply chains will boost industrial demand for silver and lift its price relative to gold. Our FX strategists recommend selling the gold-to-silver ratio.6 Chat I-26Cheap EM FX Chat I-27Silver Is The Superior Inflation Hedge   Chat I-28Still Time To Favor Stocks Over Bonds Investors should favor stocks over bonds. This statement is more an indictment of the poor value of bonds and their lack of defense against rising inflation than a structural endorsement of stocks. The equity risk premium is elevated. To make this call, we need to account for the lack of stationarity of this variable and adjust for the expected growth rate of earnings. Nonetheless, once those factors are accounted for, our ERP indicator continues to flash a buy signal in favor of equities at the expense of bonds (Chart I-28). Moreover, bonds tend to underperform stocks when inflation trends up for a long time (Table I-2).   Table I-2Rising Inflation Flatters Stocks Over Bonds Chart I-29Bonds Are Prohibitively Expensive In absolute terms, G-7 government bonds are also vulnerable, both tactically and structurally. They are overbought and currently trade at their greatest premium to fair value since Q4 2009 and Q1 1986, two periods followed by sharp rebounds in yields (Chart I-29). Moreover, the previous experience with QE programs shows that even if real rates diminish, the reflationary impact of aggressive monetary policy on breakeven rates is enough to increase nominal interest rates (Chart I-30). Additionally, as our European Investment Strategy team indicates, bond yields are close to their practical lower bound, which creates a negative skew to their return profile.7 This asymmetric return distribution destroys their ability to hedge equity risk going forward, making this asset class less appealing to investors. This problem is particularly salient in Europe and Japan. A lower dollar, which is highly reflationary for global growth, will likely catalyze the rise in yields.   Chart I-30QE Will Lift Breakevens And Yields As long as real rates remain under downward pressure, the window to own stocks remains open, even if stocks continue to churn. Equities are expensive, but when yields are taken into consideration, their adjusted P/E is in line with the historical average (Chart I-31). Moreover, periods of weak growth associated with lower real interest rates can foster a large expansion in multiples (Chart I-32). Chart I-31Low Bond Yields Allow High Stock Multiples Chart I-32Multiples Will Rise Further As The Fed Floods The World With Low Rates Whether to have faith in stocks in absolute terms on a long-term basis is complicated by our view on inflation and populism. Strong inflation will increase nominal rates. Moreover, low productivity coupled with higher real wages, less-efficient supply chains and higher taxes will accentuate the margin compression that higher inflation typically creates. Thus, equities are expected to generate poor real returns over the long term, even if they beat bonds. Chart I-33Tech EPS Leadership Tech stocks are another structural problem for equities. Including Amazon, Google and Facebook, tech stocks account for 41% of the S&P 500’s market cap. As our US Equity Strategy service explains, wherever tech goes, so does the US market.8 Tech stocks are the current market darling. Today, the tech sector is the closest thing to a safe-haven in the mind of market participants, because a post-COVID-19 environment will favor tech spending (telecommuting, e-commerce, cloud computing, etc.). The problem for long-term investors is that this view is the most consensus view. Already, investors expect the tech sector to generate the highest EPS outperformance relative to the rest of the S&P 500 in more than 15 years (Chart I-33). Moreover, in a low-yield environment, investors are particularly willing to bid up the multiples of growth stocks such as tech equities because low interest rates result in muted discount factors for long-term cash flows. When should investors begin betting against the tech sector? Backed by a powerful narrative, tech stocks are evolving into a mania. Yet, contrarian investors understand, being too early to sell a mania can be deadly. Bond yields should not be relied on to signal an end to the bubble. During most of the 1990s, tech would outperform the market when Treasury yields declined. However, when the tech outperformance became manic, yields became irrelevant. From the fall of 1998 to the beginning of 2000, 10-year yields rose from 4.2% to 6.8%, yet the tech sector outperformed the S&P 500 by 127%. More recently, yields rose from 1.33% in the summer of 2016 to 3.25% in November 2018, but tech outperformed the broader market by 39%.   Investors should favor stocks over bonds. Instead, higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Since the 1990s, higher core inflation has led periods of tech underperformance by roughly six months. This relationship also held at the apex of the tech bubble in the second half of the 1990s (Chart I-34). Relative tech forward EPS suffers when core inflation rises, as the rest of the S&P 500 is more geared to higher nominal GDP growth. In essence, if nominal growth is less scarce, then the need to bid up growth stocks diminishes. Moreover, the dollar will likely be the first early signal because it leads nominal GDP. As a result, a weak dollar leads to a contraction in tech relative multiples by approximately 9 months (Chart I-35). Chart I-34Tech Hates Inflation... Chart I-35...And A Soft Dollar   We recommend long-term investors shift their portfolios toward industrial equities when inflation turns the corner. As a corollary, the low exposure of European and Japanese stocks to the tech sector suggests these cheap bourses will finally reverse their more-than-a-decade-long underperformance at the same time. This strategy means that even if the S&P 500 generates negative real returns during the coming decade, investors could still eke out positive returns from their stock holdings. Higher inflation will be the key factor to end the tech sector’s infallibility. Chart I-36The Time For Commodities Is Coming Back Finally, commodities plays are also set to shine in the coming decade. Commodities are very cheap and oversold relative to stocks (Chart I-36). Commodities outperform equities in an environment where inflation rises, real rates decline and the dollar depreciates. Consequently, materials and energy stocks may be winners. As a corollary, Latin American and Australian equities should also reverse their decade-long underperformance when inflation and the dollar turn the corner. This month's Section II Special Report is an in depth study of the Spanish Flu pandemic, written by our colleague Amr Hanafy and also published in BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service. Amr thoroughly analyses the evolution of the 100-year old pandemic and which measures mattered most to contain the virus and allow a return to economic normality. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 28, 2020 Next Report: June 25, 2020 II. Lessons From The Spanish Flu What Can 1918/1919 Teach Us About COVID-19?   “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” George Santayana – 1905 Chart II-1Coronavirus: As Contagious But Not As Deadly As Spanish Flu Today’s economy is very different to that of 100 years ago. Many countries then were in the middle of World War I (which ended in November 1918). The characteristics of the Spanish Flu which struck the world in 1918 and 1919 were also different to this year’s pandemic. COVID-19 is almost as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but it is much less deadly (Chart II-1). Healthcare systems and treatments today are far more advanced than those of a century ago: many people who caught Spanish flu died of complications caused by bacterial pneumonia, given the absence of antibiotics. Influenza viruses tend to mutate rapidly: the influenza virus in 1918 first mutated to become far more virulent in its second wave, and then to become much milder. Coronaviruses have a “proofreading” capacity and mutate less easily.9  Nevertheless, an analysis of the pandemic of 100 years ago provides a number of insights into the current crisis, particularly now that policymakers are easing social-distancing rules to help the economy, even at the risk of more cases and deaths. Among the lessons of 1918-1919: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) do lower mortality rates. The speed at which NPIs are implemented and the period of implementation are as important as the number of measures taken. Removing or relaxing measures too early can lead to a renewed rise in mortality rates. It is hard to compare current fiscal and monetary policies to those taken during the 1918 pandemic, since policy in both areas was already easy before the pandemic as a result of the world war. However, a severe pandemic would certainly call for a wartime-like fiscal and monetary response. The economy was negatively impacted by the pandemic in 1918-19 but, despite the shock to industrial activity and employment, the economy subsequently rebounded quickly, in a V-shaped recovery. Introduction Predicting how the economy will react to the COVID-19 pandemic is hard. Governments and policymakers face multiple uncertainties: How effective are different containment measures? Will cases and deaths rebound quickly if lockdown measures are eased? When will the coronavirus disappear? When will a vaccine be ready? With an event unprecedented in the experience of anyone alive today, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from history. For this Special Report, we attempt to draw some parallels between the current situation and the 1918-19 Spanish flu. We focus on the different containment efforts implemented, the role that fiscal and monetary policies played, the impact on markets and the economy, and whether history can throw any light on how the COVID-19 crisis might pan out. The 1918 Spanish Flu Chart II-2The Spanish Flu Hit The World In Three Waves The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most lethal in modern history. Soldiers returning from World War I helped spread the pandemic across the globe. The first recorded case is believed to have been in an army camp in Kansas. While there is no official count, researchers estimate that about 500 million people contracted the virus globally, with a mortality rate of between 5% and 10%. The pandemic occurred over three waves in 1918 and 1919 – the first in the spring of 1918, the second (and most deadly) in the fall of 1918, and the third in spring 1919 (Chart II-2). In the US alone, official data estimate that around 500,000 deaths (or over 25% of all deaths) in 1918 and 1919 were caused by pneumonia and influenza.10 The pandemic moved swiftly to Europe and reached Asia by mid-1918, but became more lethal only towards the end of the year (Map II-1).11 Map II-1The Spread Of Influenza Through Europe Initially, scientists were puzzled by the origin of the influenza and its biology. It was not until a decade later, in the early 1930s, that Richard Shope isolated the particular influenza virus from infected pigs, confirming that a virus caused the Spanish Flu, not a bacterium as most had thought. Many of those who caught this strain of influenza died as a result of their lungs filling with fluid in a severe form of pneumonia. In reporting death rates, then, it is considered best practice to include deaths from both influenza and pneumonia. The first wave had almost all the hallmarks of a seasonal flu, albeit of a highly contagious strain. Symptoms were similar and mortality rates were only slightly higher than a normal influenza. The first wave went largely unnoticed given that deaths from pneumonia were common then. US public health reports show that the disease received little attention until it reappeared in a more severe form in Boston in September 1918.12 Most countries did not begin investigating and reporting cases until the second wave was underway (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Most Countries Began Reporting Only When The Second Wave Hit This second wave – which was more lethal because the virus had mutated – had a unique characteristic. Unlike the typical influenza mortality curve – which is usually “U” shaped, affecting mainly the very young and elderly – the 1918 influenza strain had a “W”-shaped mortality curve – impacting young adults as well as old people (Chart II-4). This pattern was evident in all three waves, but most pronounced during the second wave. The reason for this was that the infection caused by the influenza became hyperactive, producing a “cytokine storm” – when mediators secreted from the immune system result in severe inflammation.13 Simply put, as the virus became virulent, the body’s immune system overworked to fight it. Younger people, with strong immune systems, suffered most from this phenomenon. Chart II-4A Unique Characteristic: Impacting Younger Adults By the summer of 1919, the pandemic was over, since those who had been infected had either died or recovered, therefore developing immunity. The lack of records makes it difficult to assess if “herd immunity” was achieved. However, some historical accounts and research – particularly for army groups in the US and the UK – suggest that those exposed to the disease in the first mild wave were not affected during the second more severe wave.14 The failure to define the causative pathogen at the time made development of a vaccine impossible. Nevertheless, some treatments and remedies showed modest success. These varied from using a serum – obtained from people who had recovered, who therefore had antibodies against the disease – to simple symptomatic drugs and various oils and herbs. The Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) Chart II-5Travel Slowed...Just Not Enough What we today call “social distancing” showed positive effects during the 1918-19 pandemic. These included measures very similar to those applied today: school closures, isolation and quarantines, bans on some sorts of public gatherings, and more. However, there were few travel bans. The number of passengers carried during the months of the pandemic did noticeably decline though (Chart II-5). Table II-1, based on research by Hatchett, Mecher and Lipsitch, breaks down NPIs by type for 17 major US cities. Most cities implemented a wide range of interventions. But it was not only the type of NPIs implemented that made a difference, but also the speed and length of implementation. Further research by Markel, Lipman and Navarro based on 43 US cities shows that the median number of days between the first reported influenza case and the first NPI implementation was over two weeks. The median period during which various NPIs were implemented was about six weeks (Table II-2). Table II-1Measures Applied Then Are Very Similar To Those Applied Today Table II-2NPIs Were Implemented Only For Short Periods Markel, Lipman and Navarro's findings show that a rapid public-health response was an important factor in reducing the mortality rate by slowing the rate of infection, what we now refer to as “flattening the curve.” There were major differences in cities’ policies: both the speed at which they implement NPIs, and the length of the implementation period. Chart II-6 shows that: Cities that acted quickly to implement NPIs slowed the rate of infections and deaths (Chart II-6, panel 1) Cities that acted quickly had lower mortality rates from influenza and pneumonia (Chart II-6, panel 2) Cities that implemented NPIs for longer periods had fewer deaths (Chart II-6, panel 3) Chart II-7 quantifies the number of NPIs taken, the time it took to implement the measures, and the length of NPIs to gauge policy strictness. Cities with stricter enforcement had lower death rates than those with laxer measures. Chart II-6Fast Response And Longer Implementation Led To Fewer Deaths... Chart II-7...So Did Policy Strictness     For example, Kansas City, less than a week after its first reported case, had implemented quarantine and isolation measures. By the second week, schools, churches, and other entertainment facilities closed. Schools reopened a month later (in early November) but quickly shut again until early January 1919. While we do not have definitive dates on when each NPI was lifted, some sort of protective measures in Kansas City were in place for almost 170 days. By contrast, Philadelphia, one of the cities hardest hit by Spanish Flu, took more than a month to implement any measures. Its tardiness meant that it reached a peak mortality rate much more quickly: in 13 days compared to 31 days for Kansas City. Even after the first reported case, the Liberty Loans Parade was still held on September 28, 1918 – with the knowledge that hundreds of thousands of spectators might be vulnerable to infection.15,16 It was not until a few days later that institutions were closed and a ban on public gatherings was imposed. Many other cities also held a Liberty Loans Parade, including Pittsburgh and Washington DC, but Philadelphia’s was the deadliest. Studies also show that relaxing interventions too early could be as damaging as implementing them too late. St. Louis, for example, was quick to lift restrictions and suffered particularly badly in the second wave as a result. It later reinstated NPIs up until end of February 1919. Other cities that eased restrictions too early (San Francisco and Minneapolis, for example) also suffered from a second swift, albeit milder, increase in weekly excess death rates from pneumonia and influenza (Chart II-8). Chart II-8Relaxing Lockdown Measures Too Early Can Lead To A Second Rise In Deaths... Chart II-9...And So Can Highly Effective Measures Of course, NPIs cannot be implemented indefinitely. A recent research paper by Bootsma and Ferguson raises the point that suppressing a pandemic may not be the best strategy because it just leaves some people susceptible to infection later. They argue that highly effective social distancing measures, which allow a susceptible pool of people to reintegrate into society when the measures are lifted, are likely to lead to a resurgence in infections and fatalities in a second peak (Chart II-9).17 They suggest an optimal level of control measures to reduce R (the infection rate) to a value that makes a significant portion of the population immune once measures are lifted.  The Impact Of The Spanish Flu On The Economy And Markets How did the Spanish Flu pandemic affect the economy? Many pandemic researchers ignore the official recession identified by the NBER during the months of the pandemic (between August 1918 and March 1919).18 The reason is that most of the evidence indicates that the economic effects of the 1918-19 pandemic were short-term and relatively mild.19 Disentangling drivers of the economy is, indeed, tricky given that WW1 ended in November 1918. However, it is easy to underestimate the negative impact of the pandemic since the war had such a big impact on the economy, as well as investor and public sentiment. Various research papers support the fact that, while the pandemic did indeed have an adverse effect on the economy, NPIs did not just depress mortality rates, but also sped the post-pandemic economic recovery.20 Research by Correia, Sergio, and Luck showed that the areas most severely affected by the pandemic saw a sharp and persistent decline in real economic activity, whereas cities that intervened earlier and more aggressively, experienced a relative increase in economic activity post the pandemic.21 Their findings are based on the increase in manufacturing employment after the pandemic compared to before it (1919 versus 1914). However, note that the rise of manufacturing payrolls in 1919 was high everywhere given the return of soldiers post-WWI. The researchers also note that those cities hardest hit by the pandemic also saw a negative impact on manufacturing activity, the stock of durable goods, and bank assets. Chart II-10Short-Term Price Impact Was Disinflationary Because Spanish flu disproportionately killed younger adults, many families lost their breadwinner. In economic terms, this implies both a negative supply shock and negative demand shock. If fewer employees are available to produce a certain good, supply will fall. The same reduction in employment also implies reduced income and therefore lower purchasing power. Both cases will result in a decrease in output. However, the change in prices depends on the decline of supply relative to demand. In 1918-19, the impact was disinflationary: demand declined by more than supply, and both spending and consumer prices fell during the pandemic (Chart II-10). US factory employment fell by over 8% between March 1918 and March 1919 – the period from the beginning of the first wave until the end of the second wave. It is important to note, however, that few businesses went bankrupt during the pandemic years (Chart II-11). Additionally, the November 1918 Federal Reserve Bulletin highlighted that many cities, including New York, Kansas City, and Richmond, experienced a shortage of labor due to the influenza.22 Factory employment in New York fell by over 10% during this period. The link between the labor shortages and the decline in industrial production is unclear. Industrial activity in the US peaked just before the second wave, contracting by over 20% during the second wave (Chart II-12). Various industries reported disruptions: automobile production fell by 67%, anthracite coal production and shipments fell by around 45%, and railroad freight revenues declined by over seven billion ton-miles (Chart II-12, panels 2, 3 & 4). However, some of this decline is attributed to falling defense production after the war. Chart II-11Loss Of Middle-Aged Adults = Loss Of Breadwinners Chart II-12Activity Slowed, But Rebounded Quickly   Chart II-13The War Had A Bigger Impact On The Stock Market Than The Pandemic Chart II-14Monetary Policy Was Easy...Even Before The Pandemic Started The equity market moved in a broad range in 1915-1919 and fell sharply only ahead of the 1920 recession (Chart II-13). Seemingly, stock market participants were more focused on the war than the pandemic. The lack of reporting of the pandemic could have contributed to this: newspapers were encouraged to avoid carrying bad news for reasons of patriotism and did not widely cover the pandemic until late 1918.23 The Federal Reserve played an active role in funding the government’s spending on the war, and so monetary policy was very easy during the pandemic – but for other reasons. The Fed used its position as a lender to the banking system to facilitate war bond sales.16 Interest rates were cut in 1914 and 1915 even before the US entered the war. The US economy had been in recession between January 1913 and December 1914. Policy rates remained low throughout 1916 and 1917 and slightly rose in 1918 and 1919. It was not until 1920 that Federal Reserve Bank System tightened policy rapidly to choke off inflation, which accelerated to over 20% in mid-1920 – rising inflation being a common post-war phenomenon (Chart II-14). The Lessons Of 1918-19 For The Coronavirus Pandemic Non-pharmaceutical interventions should continue to be implemented until a vaccine, effective therapeutic drugs, or mass testing is available. Relaxing measures prematurely is as damaging as a tardy reaction to the pandemic. Reacting quickly and imposing multiple measures for longer periods not only reduces mortality rates, but also improves economic outcomes post-crisis. The economy suffers in the short-term: supply and demand shocks lead to lower output. The demand shock however is larger leading to lower prices and disinflationary pressures, at least during and immediately after the pandemic.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst Global Asset Allocation III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we maintained a positive disposition toward stocks, especially at the expense of government bonds. The global economy may be in the midst of its most severe contraction since the Great Depression, but betting against stocks is too dangerous when fiscal and monetary policy are both as easy as they are today. In essence, don’t fight the Fed. This view remains in place, even if the short-term risk/reward ratio for holding stocks is deteriorating. On a cyclical basis, the same factors that made us willing buyers of stocks remain broadly in place. Stocks are not as cheap as they were in late March, but monetary conditions have only eased further as real interest rates weakened. Additionally, our Speculation Indicator has eased, which indicates that contrary to many commentators’ perceptions, speculation is not rampant. Confirming this intuition, the equity risk premium remains elevated (even when one takes into account its lack of stationarity) and expected growth rates of earnings are still very low. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator is finally flashing a strong buy signal. Tactically, equities are still overbought. We have had four 5% or more corrections since March 23. More of them are in the cards. However, the most likely outcome for the S&P 500 this summer is a churning pattern, not a major downward move below 2700. The median stock is still 26% below its August 2018 low and only a fraction of equities on the NYSE trade above their 30-week moving average. These indicators do not scream that a major correction is on the horizon, especially when policy is as accommodative as it is today. We continue to recommend investors take advantage of the supportive backdrop for stocks by buying equities relative to bonds. In contrast to global bourses, government bonds are still massively overbought on a cyclical basis and trading at their largest premium to fair value since Q4 2008 and late 1985. Additionally, the vast sums of both monetary and fiscal stimulus injected in the economy should lift inflation expectations and thus, bond yields. The yield curve is therefore slated to steepen further. Since we last published, the dollar has not meaningfully depreciated, but the DXY is trying to breakdown while our composite technical indicator is making lower highs. It is too early to gauge whether the recent rebound in the IDR, the MXN, or the ZAR is anything more than an oversold bounce, but if it were to continue, it would indicate that the expensive greenback is starting to buckle under the weight of the quickly expanding twin deficit. The widening in the current account deficit that will result from extraordinarily loose fiscal policy means that the large increase in money supply by the Fed will leak out of the US economy. This process is highly bearish for the dollar. Ultimately, the timing of the dollar’s weakness will all boil down to global growth. As signs are building up that global growth is bottoming, odds are rising that the dollar will finally breakdown. Get ready for a meaningful downward move over the coming months. Finally, commodities seem to be gaining traction. The Continuous Commodity Index’s A/D line is quickly moving up and our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly rising from extremely oversold levels. Oil will hold the key for the broad complex. Oil supply has started to adjust lower and oil demand is set to improve starting June/July as the global economy re-opens, fueled with massive amounts of stimulus. As a result, inventories should start to meaningfully decline this summer, which will support the recent recovery in oil prices. If oil can rebound further, industrial commodities will follow. Finally, gold is a mixed bag in the near term. The dollar is set to weaken significantly and inflation breakevens to move higher, which will mitigate the negative impact of declining risk aversion. Silver is a superior play to gold as it will benefit from a recovery in global growth. 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   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Reid Cramer et al., The Emerging Millennial Wealth Gap, Divergent Trajectories, Weak Balance Sheets, and Implications for Social Policy, New America, Oct 2019. 2 https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-normal-amid-coronavirus-working-from-home-while-schooling-the-kids-11584437400 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient," dated June 27, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "May 2020," dated April 30, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "A Few Trades Amidst A Pandemic," dated May 22, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "European Investors Left Defenceless," dated May 21, 2020, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Debunking Earnings," dated May 19, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see the Q&A with immunologist and Nobel laureate Professor Peter Doherty, published by BCA Research April 1st 2020: BCA Research Special Report, “Questions On The Coronavirus: An Expert Answers,” available at bcaresearch.com 10 Please see “Leading Cause of Death, 1990-1998,” CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 11 Please see Ansart S, Pelat C, Boelle PY, Carrat F, Flahault A, Valleron AJ, “Mortality burden of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in Europe,” NCBI. 12 Please see Public Health Report, vol. 34, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1919. 13 Please see Qiang Liu, Yuan-hong Zhou, Zhan-qiu Yang Cell Mol Immunol. 2016 Jan; 13(1): 3–10. 14 Please see Shope, R. (1958) Public Health Rep. 73, 165–178. 15 The Liberty Loans Parade was intended to promote the sale of government bonds to pay for World War One. 16 Please see Hatchett RJ, Mecher CE, Lipsitch M (2007) "Public health interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic,"PNAS 104: 7582–7587. 17 Please see Bootsma M, Ferguson N, “The Effect Of Public Health Measures On The 1918 Influenza Pandemic In U.S. Cities,” PNAS (2007). 18 Please see https://www.nber.org/cycles.html 19 Please see https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/res…12               Please see https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2020/03/fight-the-pandemic-save-the-economy-lessons-from-the-1918-flu.html. 20 Please see Correia, Sergio and Luck, Stephan and Verner, Emil, Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu (March 30, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3561560 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3561560. 21 Please see Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), 1935- and Federal Reserve Board, 1914-1935. "November 1918," Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1918). 22 Please see https://newrepublic.com/article/157094/americas-newspapers-covered-pandemic. 23 Please see https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_role_during_wwi.

Highlights Investment Grade Sector Valuation: Our investment grade corporate bond sector valuation models for the US, euro area, UK, Canada and Australia show some common messages, as markets have adjusted to a virus-stricken world. The most attractive valuations can be found within Energy and Financials, with defensive sectors like Utilities and Consumer Non-Cyclicals looking expensive everywhere. Global Corporate Bond Strategy: Investors should focus global investment grade corporate bond allocations along country lines, while keeping overall spread risk close to benchmark levels, over the next 6-12 months. Specifically, we favor overweighting the US (especially at maturities of five years or less where the Fed is buying) and the UK, while keeping a neutral allocation to euro area corporates. We also like Australian and Canadian corporate debt versus sovereigns in both countries. Feature Chart 1A Swift Policy Response Has Brought Spreads Under Control Global policymakers have responded swiftly and aggressively to the COVID-19 outbreak and associated deep worldwide recession. This includes not only fiscal stimulus and monetary easing, but central banks buying corporate debt outright and providing other liquidity backstops. Coming at a time of collapsing economic growth and deteriorating corporate credit quality, these combined policy initiatives have reduced the negative tail risk for growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt. The result: a sharp tightening of corporate bond spreads across the developed markets (Chart 1). After such a large and broad-based rally, the easiest gains from the “beta” of owning corporate credit have been exhausted. Additional spread tightening is still expected in the coming months as governments begin to restart their economies after the COVID-19 quarantines start to loosen and global growth slowly begins to improve. Spreads are unlikely to return all the way to the pre-virus tights, however, as the recovery will be uneven and there is still the threat of a second wave of coronavirus infections later this year. To that end, it makes sense for investors to begin seeking out the “alpha” in corporate debt markets by looking at relative valuations across sectors to find opportunities. It makes sense for investors to begin seeking out the “alpha” in corporate debt markets by looking at relative valuations across sectors to find opportunities.  In this report, we will conduct a review of our entire suite of global investment grade corporate sector relative value models. We will cover the US, provide fresh updates of our recently published look at the euro area1 and the UK,2 while also revisiting our relative value framework for Canada first introduced last year.3 We will also apply the same corporate bond sector value methodology to a new country: Australia. In addition, we will examine value across credit tiers using breakeven spread analysis for each of these regions. A Brief Note On Our Corporate Bond Relative Value Tools Before delving into the results from our models, we take this opportunity to refresh readers on the methodology underpinning these analyses. Our sector relative value framework determines “fair value” spreads for each of the major and minor industry level sub-indices of the overall investment grade universe of individual developed market economies (using Bloomberg Barclays bond indices). The methodology takes each sector’s individual option-adjusted spread (OAS) and regresses it with all other sectors in a cross-sectional model. The models vary slightly across countries/regions, as the independent variables in the regression are selected based on parameter significance and predictive power for local sector spreads. Using the common coefficients from that regression, a risk-adjusted "fair value" spread is calculated. The difference between the actual OAS and fair value OAS – a.k.a. the residual from the regression - is our valuation metric used to inform our sector allocation ranking. We then look at the relationship between these residuals and duration-times-spread (DTS), our primary measure of sector riskiness, to give a reading on the risk/reward trade-off for each sector. We then apply individual sector weights based on the model output and our desired level of overall spread risk to come up with a recommended credit portfolio. The weights are determined at our discretion and are not the output from any quantitative portfolio optimization process. The only constraints are that all sector weights must add to 100% (i.e. the portfolio is fully invested with no use of leverage) and the overall level of spread risk (DTS) must equal our desired target. To examine value across credit tiers, we use a different metric - 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings. Specifically, we calculate how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus duration-matched government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. With the key details of our models squared away, we will now present the results of our models for each country/region, along with our recommended allocation across sectors. We also discuss our recommended level of overall spread risk for each country/region, which helps inform our specific sector weightings. A Country-By-Country Assessment Of Investment Grade Corporates US In Table 1, we present the latest output from our US investment grade sector valuation model. In keeping with the framework used by BCA Research US Bond Strategy, we use the average credit rating, duration, and duration-squared (convexity) of each sector as the model inputs. To determine our US sector recommendations, we not only need to look at the spread valuations from the relative value model, but we must also consider what level of overall US spread risk (DTS) to target. Table 1US Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation With the Fed now purchasing investment grade corporates with maturities of up to five years in the primary and secondary markets, it makes sense to take advantage of that explicit support by focusing exposures on shorter-maturity bonds. Thus, we recommend targeting a relatively moderate level of spread risk (within an overweight allocation to US investment grade corporates) by favoring sectors with a DTS less than or equal to that of the overall US investment grade index. The sweet spot, therefore, is the upper-left quadrant in Chart 2 - sectors with positive risk-adjusted spread residuals from the relative value model and a relatively lower DTS. Chart 2US Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Chart 3US IG: More Value In The Lower Tiers On that basis, some of the most attractive overweight candidates are Cable Satellite, Media Entertainment, Integrated Energy, Diversified Manufacturing, Brokerage/Asset Managers, and Other Financials. Meanwhile, the least attractive sectors within this framework are Railroads, Communications, Wirelines, Wireless, Other Industrials and Utilities (including Electric, Natural Gas, and Other Utilities). While we have chosen to underweight much of the Energy space (with the exception of Integrated Energy) because of generally high DTS numbers, investors who are comfortable with taking on a higher level of spread risk can find some of the most attractive risk-adjusted valuations within oil related sectors. Our colleagues at BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy expect oil prices to continue to steadily rise in the months ahead, with Brent oil trading, on average, at $40/bbl this year and $68/bbl in 2021.4 We recommend targeting a relatively moderate level of spread risk (within an overweight allocation to US investment grade corporates). Across credit tiers, the higher-quality portion of the US investment grade corporate bond market appears unattractive, with spreads ranking below the historical median for Aaa- and Aa-rated debt (Chart 3). Conversely, Baa-rated debt appears most attractive, with spreads almost in the historical upper quartile. Euro Area In Table 2, we present the results of our euro area investment grade sector valuation model. The independent variables in this model are each sector’s duration, trailing 12-month spread volatility, and credit rating. Note that we will be using the same independent variables in our UK model. Table 2Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation Spreads have already tightened significantly since our last discussion of euro area corporates in mid-April, with credit markets more fully pricing in greater monetary stimulus from the European Central Bank (ECB) – including increased government and corporate bond purchases. Thus, we believe it is reasonable to target a neutral level of overall portfolio DTS close to that of the benchmark index (within a neutral allocation to euro area investment grade). This means that, visually, we can think about our overweight candidates as sectors that are in the top half of Chart 4 - with positive residuals from our relative value model - but close to the dashed vertical line denoting the euro area benchmark index DTS. Target a neutral level of overall portfolio DTS close to that of the benchmark index (within a neutral allocation to euro area investment grade). Chart 4Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Chart 5Euro Area IG: All Credit Buckets Are Attractive Within this framework, the most attractive sectors are Diversified Manufacturing, Packaging, Media Entertainment, Wireless, Wirelines, Automotive, Retailers, Services, Integrated Energy, Refining, Other Industrials, Bank Subordinated Debt and Brokerage/Asset Managers. The most unattractive sectors are Chemicals, Metals & Mining, Lodging, Restaurants, Consumer Products, Pharmaceuticals, Independent Energy, Midstream Energy, Airlines, Electric Utilities, and Senior Bank Debt. On a breakeven spread basis, all euro area investment grade credit tiers look attractive and rank well above their historical medians (Chart 5). The greatest value is in the upper rungs, with Aa-rated spreads ranking in the historical upper quartile; Aaa-rated and A-rated spreads almost meet that qualification as well, with Baa-rated spreads lagging a bit further behind (but still well above median). UK In Table 3, we present the latest output from our UK relative value spread model. With the Bank of England’s record expansion of corporate bond holdings still underway, we see good reason to maintain our overweight allocation to UK investment grade corporates on a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic basis (6-12 months). We are also targeting an overall portfolio DTS higher than that of the benchmark index—which we accomplish by overweighting sectors in the upper right quadrant of Chart 6. Table 3UK Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation Chart 6UK Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Chart 7UK IG: Value In All Tiers Except Aaa Based on this framework, some of the most attractive overweight candidates are Diversified Manufacturing, Cable Satellite, Media Entertainment, Railroads, Financial Institutions, Life Insurance, Healthcare and Other Financials. Meanwhile, the most unattractive sectors are Basic Industry, Chemicals, Metals and Mining, Building Materials, Lodging, Consumer Products, Food & Beverage, Pharmaceuticals, Energy, and Technology. On a breakeven spread basis, Aa-rated spreads appear most attractive while A-rated and Baa-rated spreads also rank above their historical medians (Chart 7). Canada Table 4 shows the output from our Canadian relative value spread model. The independent variables in this model are: sector duration, one-year ahead default probability (as calculated by Bloomberg) and credit rating. Table 4Canada Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation This week, the Bank of Canada (BoC) will join peer central banks in purchasing investment grade debt via its Corporate Bond Purchase Program (CBPP). First announced in April, the program has a maximum size of C$10 billion, equal to only 2% of the Bloomberg Barclays Canadian investment grade index. Nonetheless, the BoC’s actions have already helped rein in corporate spreads. Yet given this unprecedented support from the central bank, with room to add more if necessary to stabilize Canadian financial conditions, we feel comfortable recommending an overweight allocation to Canadian investment grade corporates vs. Canadian sovereign debt, but with spread risk close to the overall index. Consequently, we are targeting sectors in the upper half of Chart 8 with a DTS close to the corporate average denoted by the dashed line. Chart 8Canada Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Chart 9Canada IG: Great Value Across Tiers Our top overweight candidates are concentrated within the Financials category: Life Insurance, Healthcare REITs and Other Financials. Meanwhile, we recommend underweighting Construction Machinery, Environmental, Retailers, Supermarkets, Wirelines, Transportation Services, Cable Satellite, and Media Entertainment. On a breakeven spread basis, there is value in all credit tiers in the Canadian investment grade space, with Aaa-rated, Aa-rated, and Baa-rated spreads all in the uppermost historical quartile (Chart 9). Australia Table 5 shows the output from our new Australia relative value spread model. The independent variables in this model are sector credit rating, one-year ahead default probability (as calculated by Bloomberg), and yield-to-maturity. Due to the relatively small size of the Australian corporate bond market, we are focusing our analysis on Level 3 sectors within the Bloomberg Barclays Classification System (BCLASS) rather than the more granular Level 4 analysis we have employed for other markets. Table 5Australia Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation We recently recommended going overweight Australian investment grade corporate debt vs. government bonds.5 We feel comfortable reiterating that overweight stance while maintaining a neutral level of overall spread risk. As with Canada, we are looking for sectors in Chart 10 that show positive risk-adjusted valuations and have a DTS close to the Australian corporate benchmark. Chart 10Australia Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Chart 11Australia IG: Favor A-Rated and Baa-Rated Credit Based on that, our top overweight candidates are Capital Goods, Consumer Cyclicals, Energy, Other Utility, Insurance, Finance Companies, and Other Financials. Meanwhile, we are avoiding sectors such as Technology, Transportation, Electric and Natural Gas. On a breakeven spread basis, Baa-rated spreads look incredibly attractive, ranking at the 99.9th percentile; A-rated spreads are also above their historical median (Chart 11). Meanwhile, the higher quality Aaa and Aa tiers are relatively unattractive. As the relevant data by credit tier are not available in the Bloomberg Barclays Indices, we have instead used the Bloomberg AusBond Indices for this particular case, which unfortunately limits the history of our analysis to mid-2014. Bottom Line: Investors should focus global investment grade corporate bond allocations along country lines, while keeping overall spread risk close to benchmark levels, over the next 6-12 months. Specifically, we favor overweighting the US (especially at maturities of five years or less where the Fed is buying) and the UK, while keeping a neutral allocation to euro area corporates. We also like Australian and Canadian corporate debt versus sovereigns in both countries. Comparing Sector Valuations Across Markets The above analyses have allowed us to paint a picture of sector valuation within regions. However, there is added benefit in looking at risk-adjusted valuations across the three major corporate bond markets—the US, euro area and UK—with the intent of spotting broader sector level trends in the global investment grade universe that are not limited to just one market. Looking at Table 6, we can see some clear patterns: Table 6Valuations Across Major Corporate Bond Markets Chart 12Canada, Euro Area, and UK Win Out On A Breakeven Spread Basis The most attractive sectors across the board are concentrated in the Financials space. Brokerage/Asset Managers, Insurance—especially Life Insurance - REITs and Other Financials all look well positioned. Valuations for Oil Field Services and Refining within the Energy space are also creating an attractive entry point ahead of the steady rebound in oil prices. Conversely, the most expensive sectors are the traditionally “defensive” ones, such as Utilities, Consumer Non-Cyclicals, and even Technology, which is now debatably a defensive sector. Most interesting are the idiosyncratic stories. These are sectors which have benefited or lost in outsized ways due to the unique impacts of COVID-19 on the economy, but which also have relatively wide or tight risk-adjusted spreads across all three countries. For example, Packaging and Paper, which should benefit from the increased demand for online shopping, and Media Entertainment, which benefits from a captive audience boosting streams and ratings, both have attractive spreads. On the other hand, we have Restaurants, with unattractive spread valuations at a time where more people will choose to stay home rather than take the health and safety risks associated with eating out. The most expensive sectors are the traditionally “defensive” ones, such as Utilities, Consumer Non-Cyclicals, and even Technology, which is now debatably a defensive sector. Finally, we can also employ our breakeven spread analysis to assess value across investment grade corporate bond markets and the country level (Chart 12). Within this framework, all the regions we have covered in this report appear attractive – especially Canada, the euro area and the UK – with Australia only appearing fairly valued. Bottom Line: Our investment grade corporate bond sector valuation models for the US, euro area, UK, Canada and Australia show some common messages, as markets have adjusted to a virus-stricken world. The most attractive valuations can be found within Energy and Financials, with defensive sectors like Utilities and Consumer Non-Cyclicals looking expensive everywhere.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 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. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low", dated April 28, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great White North: A Framework For Analyzing Canadian Corporate Bonds", dated August 28, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "US Politics Will Drive 2H20 Oil Prices", dated May 21, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Australia: All Good Streaks Must Come To An End", dated May 13, 2020, available at gfis.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 German bunds and Swiss bonds are no longer haven assets. The haven assets are the Swiss franc, Japanese yen, and US T-bonds. Gold is less effective as a haven asset. During this year’s coronavirus crash, the gold price fell by -7 percent. As such, our haven asset of choice for a further demand shock would be the 30-year T-bond, whose price rose by 10 percent during the crash. Technology and healthcare are the two sectors most likely to contain haven equities. Fractal trade: long Polish zloty versus euro. German Bunds And Swiss Bonds Are No Longer Haven Assets Chart of the WeekGold Is Tracking The US 30-Year T-Bond Price... But The T-Bond Is The Better Haven Asset European investors have been left defenceless. German bunds and Swiss bonds used to be the safest of haven assets. You used to be able to bet your bottom dollar – or euro or Swiss franc for that matter – that the bond prices would rally during a demand shock. Not in 2020. When the global economy and stock markets collapsed from mid-February through mid-March, the DAX slumped by -39 percent. Yet the German 10-year bund price, rather than rallying, fell by -2 percent, while the Swiss 10-year bond price fell by -4 percent.1  The lower limit to bond yields is around -1 percent. The reason is that German and Swiss bond yields are close to the practical lower limit to yields, which we believe is around -1 percent (Chart I-2). This means that German and Swiss bond prices cannot rise much, though they can theoretically fall a lot. Chart I-2German And Swiss Bond Yields Are Near Their Practical Lower Bound The behaviour of German bunds and Swiss bonds during the current crisis contrasts with previous episodes of market stress when their yields were unconstrained by the -1 percent lower limit. During the heat of the euro debt crisis in 2011, the 10-year bund price rallied by 12 percent. Likewise, during the frenzy of the global financial crisis in 2008, the 10-year bund price rallied by 7 percent (Chart I-3 - Chart I-5). Chart I-3German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2008 Crash Chart I-4German And Swiss Bonds Protected Investors During The 2011 Crash Chart I-5German And Swiss Bonds Did Not Protect Investors During The 2020 Crash The defencelessness of European investors can also be illustrated via a ‘balanced’ 25:75 portfolio containing the DAX and 10-year German bund. The balanced portfolio theory is that a large weighting to bonds should counterbalance a sharp sell-off in equities, thereby protecting the overall portfolio. The theory worked well… until now. In this year’s coronavirus crisis, the 25:75 DAX/bund portfolio suffered a loss of -13 percent. This is substantially worse than the loss of -2 percent during the euro debt crisis in 2011, and the loss of -7 percent during the global financial crisis in 2008 (Chart I-6 - Chart I-8). Chart I-6A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 7 Percent During The 2008 Crash Chart I-7A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 2 Percent During The 2011 Crash Chart I-8A 25:75 DAX:Bund Portfolio Lost 13 Percent During The 2020 Crash What Are The Haven Assets? The lower limit to the policy interest rate – and therefore bond yields – is around -1 percent, because -1 percent counterbalances the storage costs of holding physical cash or other stores of value. If banks passed a deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, the depositors would flee into other stores of value. But if banks did not pass a deeply negative policy rate to their depositors, it would wipe out the banks’ net interest (profit) margin. Either way, a deeply negative policy rate would destroy the banking system. German and Swiss bond prices cannot rise much. German and Swiss bond yields are close to the -1 percent lower limit, meaning that the bond prices are close to their upper limit. Begging the question: what are the haven assets whose prices will rise and protect long-only investors when economic demand slumps? We can think of three. The Swiss franc. The Japanese yen (Chart I-9). US T-bonds. Chart I-9The Swiss Franc And Japanese Yen Are Haven Assets During the coronavirus crash, the 10-year T-bond price rallied by 4 percent while the 30-year T-bond price rallied by 10 percent (Chart I-10). Compared with German bund and Swiss bond yields, US T-bond yields were – and still are – further from the -1 percent lower limit. The good news is that long-dated T-bonds can still protect investors during a demand shock, although be warned that the extent of protection diminishes as yields get closer to the lower limit. Chart I-10Long-Dated US T-Bonds Are Haven Assets What about gold? As gold has a zero yield, it becomes relatively more attractive to own as the yield on other haven assets declines and turns negative. In fact, through the last three years, the gold price has been nothing more than a proxy for the US 30-year T-bond price (Chart of the Week). But gold is an inferior haven asset. During the coronavirus crash, the gold price fell by -7 percent, meaning it did not offer the protection that T-bonds offered. As such, our haven asset of choice for a further demand shock would not be gold. It would be the 30-year T-bond. What Are The Haven Equities? Many investors still use (root mean squared) volatility as a metric of investment risk. There’s a big problem with this. Volatility treats price upside the same as price downside. This is unrealistic. Nobody minds the price upside, they only care about the downside! Hence, a truer metric of risk is the potential for short-term losses versus gains. This truer measure of risk is known as negative asymmetry, or negative skew. In the twilight zone of ultra-low bond yields, bond prices take on this unattractive negative skew. As German bunds and Swiss bonds have taught us this year, bond prices can suffer losses, but they cannot offer gains. This means that bonds become riskier investments relative to other long-duration investments such as equities whose own negative skew remains relatively stable. The upshot is that the prospective return offered by equities must collapse. This is because both components of the equity return – the bond yield plus the equity risk premium – shrink simultaneously.  Equity valuations rise as an exponential function of inverted bond yields. Given that valuation is just the inverse of prospective return, the effect is that equity valuations rise as an exponential function of inverted bond yields. Chart I-11 illustrates this exponentiality by showing that technology equity multiples have tightly tracked the inverted bond yield plotted on a logarithmic scale. Chart I-11Technology Valuations Are Exponentially Sensitive To The (Inverted) Bond Yield Unfortunately, not all equities will benefit from this powerful dynamic. Equities must meet two crucial conditions to justify this exponential re-rating. One condition is that their sales and profits must be relatively resilient in the face of the current coronavirus induced demand shock. And they should not be at risk of a structural discontinuity, as is likely for say airlines, leisure and many other old-fashioned cyclicals. A second condition is that their cashflows must be weighted further into the future, so that their ‘net present values’ are much more geared to the decline in bond yields. Equities that meet these two conditions are likely to benefit the most from the ongoing era of ultra-low bond yields. And the two equity sectors that appear the biggest beneficiaries are technology and healthcare. In the coronavirus world, these two sectors will likely contain the haven equities. Stay structurally overweight technology and healthcare. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is to go long the Polish zloty versus the euro. The profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss are set at 2 percent. Most of the other open trades are flat, though long Australian 30-year bonds versus US 30-year T-bonds and Euro area personal products versus healthcare are comfortably in profit.  The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-12PLN/EUR When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 From February 19 through March 18, 2020. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Special Report

Highlights Fed/BoE NIRP: It is too soon for either the Fed or Bank of England to consider a move to a negative interest rate policy (NIRP), even with US and UK money markets flirting with pricing in that outcome. Lessons from “NIRP 1.0”: In the countries that did go to negative rates in 2014-16 (Japan, Switzerland, the euro area, Sweden and Denmark), there existed some combination of weak economies, near-0% inflation, anemic credit growth or unwanted currency appreciation. Negative rates were needed to help fight those trends by driving down longer-term bond yields. NIRP 2.0?: Among the major countries without negative rate policies in effect (the US, UK, Canada and Australia), there is no evidence that longer-term borrowing rates need to fall further to boost credit growth, even in the midst of deep recessions. However, additional strength of the stubbornly resilient US dollar could be the deflationary shock that eventually forces the Fed into NIRP. Feature Chart 1NIRP 2.0 Would Trigger A Surge Of Negative Yielding Bonds Within a 20-month window in 2014-16, the central banks of Japan, Sweden, the euro area, Switzerland and Denmark all cut policy interest rates to below 0% - where they remain to this day. Fast forward to 2020, in the midst of a global pandemic and deep worldwide recession that has already forced major developed market central banks to cut rates close to 0%, there is now increased speculation that the negative interest rate policy (NIRP) club might soon get a few new members. The Federal Reserve has been front and center in that group. Fed funds futures contracts had recently priced in slightly negative rates in 2021, despite Fed Chair Jerome Powell repeatedly saying that a sub-0% funds rate was not in the Fed’s plans. The Bank of England (BoE) has also seen markets inch toward pricing in negative rates, although BoE officials have been more open to the idea of negative rates as a viable policy choice. Even the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has suggested that negative rates may be needed there soon. An expansion of the list of countries that have moved to negative rates, beyond the “NIRP 1.0” group of 2014-16, has the potential to drive down global bond yields even further. Already, there is $11 trillion of negative yielding debt within the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate index, representing 20% of the total (Chart 1) If there is a shift to negative rates in the potential “NIRP 2.0” group of major developed economies with policy rates now near 0% – a list that includes the US, the UK, Canada and Australia – then the amount of negative yielding debt worldwide will soar to new highs. An expansion of the list of countries that have moved to negative rates, beyond the “NIRP 1.0” group of 2014-16, has the potential to drive down global bond yields even further. In this report, we take a look at the conditions that led the NIRP 1.0 countries to shift to negative rates in the middle of the last decade, to see if any similarities exist in non-NIRP countries today. We conclude that the conditions are not yet in place for a shift to sub-0% policy rates in the US, the UK, Canada or Australia – all countries where central banks still have other policy tools available to provide stimulus before resorting to negative rates. How Negative Interest Rates Can “Work” To Revive Growth Broadly speaking, central banks around the world have had difficulty meeting their inflation targets since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The main reason for this has been sub-par economic growth, much of which is structural due to aging demographics and weak productivity. Since central bankers must stick to their legislated inflation targeting mandates, they are forced to cut rates when economic growth and inflation are too low. If real economic growth remains weak for structural reasons, then central banks can enter into a cycle of continually cutting rates all the way to zero, or even below zero, in order to try and prevent low inflation from becoming entrenched into longer-term inflation expectations. If growth and inflation continue to languish even after policy rates have reached 0%, then other tools must be used to ease monetary conditions to try and stimulate economies. These typically involve driving down longer-term borrowing rates (bond yields) through dovish forward guidance on future monetary policy, bond purchases through quantitative easing (QE) and, if those don’t work, moving to negative policy interest rates. A nice summary indicator to identify this intertwined dynamic of real economic growth and inflation is to look at the trend growth rate of nominal GDP. Chart 2 shows the policy interest rates three-year annualized trend of nominal GDP growth for the NIRP 1.0 countries, dating back to before the 2008 crisis. Japan stands out as the weakest of the group, with trend nominal growth contracting during and after the 2009 recession, while struggling to reach even +2% since then. The euro area, Sweden and Switzerland all enjoyed +5% nominal growth prior to 2008, before a plunge to the 1-2% range during and after the recession. After that, the three countries had varying degrees of economic success. Between 2016 and 2019, Sweden saw trend nominal growth between 4-5%, while the euro area struggled to achieve even +3% nominal growth and Switzerland maintained a Japan-like pace. Chart 2Fewer Tools Left For NIRP 1.0 Countries To Boost Growth Chart 3NIRP 2.0 Candidates Can Still Expand QE First The European Central Bank (ECB), Swiss National Bank (SNB), the Bank of Japan (BoJ) and Sweden’s Riksbank all cut policy rates aggressively in 2008/09, helping spur a recovery in nominal growth. The central banks had to keep rates lower for longer because of structurally weak growth, leaving far less capacity to ease aggressively in response to the growth downturn a few years later. Eventually, the ECB, SNB, BoJ and Riksbank all went to negative rates between June 2014 and February 2016. The BoJ and SNB, facing persistent headwinds from strengthening currencies, also resorted to aggressive balance sheet expansion to provide additional monetary stimulus – trends that have continued to this day, with both central banks having balance sheets equal to around 120% of GDP. The experience of these four NIRP 1.0 countries showed that the move to negative rates was a process that began in the 2008 financial crisis. Central banks there were unable to raise rates much, if at all, after the recession, leaving little ammunition to fight the varying growth slowdowns suffered between 2012 and 2016. Eventually, rates had to be cut below 0% which, combined with QE, helped generate lower bond yields, weaker currencies and, eventually, a pickup in growth and inflation. Looking at the NIRP 2.0 candidate countries, nominal GDP growth has also struggled since the financial crisis, unable to stay much above 3-4% in the US, Canada and the UK. Only Australia has seen trend growth reach peaks closer to 5-6% (Chart 3). The Fed, BoE, Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and Bank of Canada (BoC) all also cut rates aggressively in 2008/09, with the Fed and BoE doing QE buying of domestic bonds. Rates were left at low levels after the crisis in the US and UK, with only the RBA and, to a lesser extent, the BoC hiking rates after the recession ended. When growth slowed again in these countries during the 2014-16 period, the RBA and BoC did lower policy rates, but negative rates were avoided by all four central banks. Today, nominal growth rates have collapsed because of the COVID-19 lockdowns that have shuttered much of the world economy. Central banks that have had any remaining capacity to cut policy rates back to 0% have done so, yet this recession has already become so deep that additional declines in rates may be necessary to stabilize unemployment and inflation. The experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries shows that negative rates can also be effective in boosting growth – especially in countries suffering unwanted currency strength. One way to see the problem that monetary policymakers are now facing is by looking at Taylor Rule estimates of appropriate interest rate levels (Charts 4 and 5). Given the rapid surge in global unemployment rates to levels that, in some cases, have not been seen since the Great Depression (Chart 6), alongside decelerating inflation, Taylor Rule implied policy rates are now deeply negative in the US (-5.6%), Canada (-2.9%) and euro area (-1.7%).1 Taylor Rules show that moderately negative rates are also needed in Sweden (-0.5%), Switzerland (-0.2%) and Japan (-0.2%). Only in Australia (+1.3%) and the UK (+0.3%) is the Taylor Rule indicating that negative rates are not currently required. Chart 4Taylor Rule Says More Rate Cuts Needed Here … Chart 5… But Rates Are Appropriate Here Chart 6The Main Reason Why Taylor Rule Implied Policy Rates Have Plunged Among the potential NIRP 2.0 candidates, the negative rate option has been avoided and aggressive QE balance sheet expansion has been pursued by all of them – including the BoC and RBA who avoided asset purchase programs in 2008/09. Balance sheet expansion can be an adequate substitute for policy interest rate cuts by helping drive down longer-term bond yields and borrowing rates, which helps spur credit demand and, eventually, economic growth. Yet the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries shows that negative rates can also be effective in boosting growth – especially in countries suffering unwanted currency strength. How negative rates worked for the NIRP 1.0 countries For the ECB (Chart 7), BoJ (Chart 8), Riksbank (Chart 9) and SNB, the path from negative policy rates in 2014-16 to, eventually, faster economic growth and inflation followed a similar process: Chart 7The Euro Area's Negative Rates Experience Chart 8Japan's Negative Rates Experience Chart 9Sweden's Negative Rates Experience Moving to negative policy rates resulted in a sharp decline in nominal government bond yields The fall in yields helped trigger currency depreciation Nominal yields fell faster than inflation expectations, allowing real bond yields to turn negative Credit growth eventually began to pick up in response to the decline in real borrowing costs Inflation bottomed out and started to move higher. In Japan, the euro area and Sweden, this process played out fairly rapidly with credit growth and inflation bottoming within 6-12 months of the move to negative rates. Only in Switzerland (Chart 10), where the SNB gave up on currency intervention in January 2015, was the process delayed, as the surge in the currency triggered a move into deeper deflation and higher real bond yields. It took a little more than a year for the deflationary impact of the franc’s surge to fade, allowing real bond yields to decline and credit growth and inflation to bottom out and recover. The implication is clear – negative rates are good for real assets, but troublesome for banks.  Of course, we are talking about the pure economic effect of negative rates as a monetary policy tool. There are side effects of having negative nominal interest rates and deeply negative real bond yields, like surging asset values (especially for real assets like housing). Bank profitability is also negatively impacted by the sharp fall in longer-term bond yields that hurts net interest margins, even with higher lending volumes and reduced non-performing loans. Chart 10Switzerland's Negative Rates Experience Chart 11Negative Rates Are Good For Real Assets This can be seen in Charts 11 & 12, which compare the performance of real house prices and bank equities (relative to the domestic equity market) in the years leading up to, and following, the move to negative rates in 2014-16 for the NIRP 1.0 countries. The implication is clear – negative rates are good for real assets, but troublesome for banks. Chart 12Negative Rates Are Bad For Bank Stocks Nonetheless, the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries suggests that the potential NIRP 2.0 countries could see similar benefits on growth and inflation – but not before other policy options are exhausted first. Bottom Line: In the countries that did go to negative rates in 2014-16 (Japan, Switzerland, the euro area, Sweden and Denmark), there existed some combination of weak economies, near-0% inflation, anemic credit growth or unwanted currency appreciation. Negative rates were needed to help fight those trends by driving down longer-term bond yields and helping spur credit growth and, eventually, some inflation. Depreciating currencies had a big role to play in generating those outcomes. Negative Rates Are Not Necessary (Yet) In The NIRP 2.0 Countries As discussed earlier, the sharp surge in unemployment because of the COVID-19 global recession means that negative interest rates may now be “appropriate” in the US and Canada, based on Taylor Rules. Negative rates are not needed in the UK and Australia, however, although policy rates need to stay very low in both countries. A similar divergence can be seen in inflation. Headline CPI inflation rates were already under severe downward pressure from the recent collapse in oil prices. The surge in spare economic capacity opened up by the current recession can only exacerbate the disinflation trend. However, the drop in inflation has been more acute in the US and Canada relative to the UK and Australia, suggesting a greater need for the Fed and BoC to be even more stimulative than the BoE or RBA (Chart 13). A renewed breakout of the currency to new cyclical highs could be the deflationary signal that triggers the Fed into an even more aggressive policy response. There is one area where the Fed stands alone in this group. The relentless strength of the US dollar, even as the Fed’s rate cuts have taken much of the attractive carry out of the greenback, hurts US export competitiveness in a demand-deficient recessionary global economy. The strong dollar also acts as a dampening influence on US inflation. A renewed breakout of the currency to new cyclical highs could be the deflationary signal that triggers the Fed into an even more aggressive policy response (Chart 14). This would mirror the experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries prior to the move to negative rates, where unwanted currency strength crippled both economic growth and inflation. Chart 13The Threat Of Deflation Could Trigger NIRP Chart 14Could More USD Strength Drag The Fed Into NIRP? For now, the Fed has many other policy options open before negative rates would be seriously considered. The reach of its QE programs could be expanded even further, even including equity purchases. The existing bond QE could be combined with a specific yield target (i.e. yield curve control) for shorter-maturity US Treasuries, helping anchor US yields at low levels for longer. Summing it all up, we do not see the need for any of the NIRP 2.0 candidates to move to negative rates anytime soon. The need for such extreme policies is not yet necessary, though, both in the US and the other NIRP 2.0 candidate countries. Bank lending is expanding at a double-digit pace in the US, and still at a decent 5-7% pace in the UK, Canada and Australia, even in the midst of a sharp recession (Chart 15). This may only be due to the numerous loan guarantees provided by governments as part of fiscal stimulus responses, or it may be related to companies running down credit lines to maintain liquidity. The experience of the NIRP 1.0 countries, though, suggests that credit growth must be far weaker than this to require negative policy rates to push down longer-term borrowing costs. Chart 15These Already Look Very "NIRP-ish" Chart 16Too Soon For Global NIRP, Maintain Neutral Global Duration Exposure Summing it all up, we do not see the need for any of the NIRP 2.0 candidates to move to negative rates anytime soon. In terms of investment implications, we continue to recommend an overall neutral stance on global duration exposure, as we see little immediate impetus for yields to move lower because of reduced expectations of future interest rates or inflation (Chart 16). We will continue to watch currency levels and credit growth as a sign that policymakers may need to shift their tone in the coming months. Bottom Line: Among the major countries without negative rate policies in effect (the US, UK, Canada and Australia), there is no evidence that longer-term borrowing rates need to fall further to boost credit growth, even in the midst of deep recessions. However, additional strength of the stubbornly resilient US dollar could be the deflationary shock that eventually forces the Fed into NIRP.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Footnotes 1 Our specification of the Taylor Rule uses unemployment rates relative to full employment (NAIRU) levels as the measure of spare capacity in the economies. For the neutral real interest rate, we use the New York Fed’s estimate of r-star for the US, Canada, the euro area and the UK; while using the OECD’s estimate of potential GDP growth as the neutral real rate measure for countries where we have no r-star estimate (Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and Australia).

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 Our baseline view foresees a U-shaped recovery, as economies slowly relax lockdown measures. There are significant risks to this forecast, however. On the upside, a vaccine or effective treatment could hasten the reopening of economies and recovery in spending. On the downside, containment measures could end up being eased too quickly, leading to a surge in new cases. A persistent spell of high unemployment could also permanently damage economies, especially if fiscal and monetary stimulus is withdrawn too quickly. In addition, geopolitical risks loom large, with the US election likely to be fought on who sounds tougher on China. Earnings estimates have yet to fall as much as we think they will, making global equities vulnerable to a near-term correction. Nevertheless, the spread between earnings yields and bond yields is wide enough to justify a modest overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon. Is It Safe To Come Down? We published a report two weeks ago entitled Still Stuck In The Tree where we likened the current situation to one where an angry bear has chased a hiker up a tree.1 Having reached a high enough branch to escape immediate danger, the hiker breathes a sigh of relief. As time goes by, however, the hiker starts to get nervous. Rather than disappearing back into the forest, the bear remains at the base of the tree licking its chops. Meanwhile, the hiker is cold, hungry, and late for work. Like the hiker, the investment community breathed a collective sigh of relief when the number of cases in Italy and Spain, the first two major European economies to be hit by the coronavirus, began to trend lower. In New York City, which quickly emerged as the epicentre of the crisis in the United States, more COVID patients have been discharged from hospitals than admitted for the past three weeks (Chart 1). Chart 1Discharges From New York Hospitals Have Exceeded Admissions For The Past Three Weeks Deepest Recession Since The 1930s Yet, this progress has come at a very heavy economic cost. The IMF expects the global economy to shrink by 3% this year (Chart 2). In 2009, global GDP barely contracted. Chart 2Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year The sudden stop in economic activity has led to a surge in unemployment. According to the Bloomberg consensus estimate, the US unemployment rate rose to 16% in April. The true unemployment rate is probably higher since to be considered unemployed one has to be looking for work, which is difficult if not impossible in the presence of widespread lockdowns. Regardless, even the official unemployment rate is the worst since the Great Depression (Chart 3). Chart 3Unemployment Rate Seen Jumping To Levels Not Reached Since The Great Depression   Unshackling The Economy A key difference from the 1930s is that today’s recession has been self-induced. Policymakers want workers to stay home as much as possible. The hope is that once businesses reopen, most of these workers will return to their jobs. How long will that take? Our baseline scenario envisions a slow but steady reopening of the global economy starting later this month, which should engender a U-shaped economic recovery. Since mid-March, much of the world has been trying to compensate for lost time by taking measures that would not have been necessary if policymakers had acted sooner. As Box 1 explains, some loosening of lockdown measures could be achieved without triggering a second wave of cases once the infection rate has been brought down to a sufficiently low level. To the extent that economic activity tends to move in tandem with the number of interactions that people have, a relaxation of social distancing measures should produce a modest rebound in growth. New technologies and a better understanding of how the virus is transmitted should also allow some of the more economically burdensome measures to be lifted. As we have discussed before, mass testing can go a long way towards reducing the spread of the disease (Chart 4).2 Right now, high-quality tests are in short supply, but that should change over the coming months.  Chart 4Mass Testing Will Help Increased mask production should also help. Early in the pandemic, officials in western nations promulgated the view that masks do not work. At best, this was a noble lie designed to ensure that anxious consumers did not deprive frontline workers of necessary safety equipment. At worst, it needlessly led many people astray. As East Asia’s experience shows, mask wearing saves lives. A recent paper estimated that the virus could be vanquished if 80% of people wore masks that were at least 60% effective, a very low bar that even cloth masks would pass (Chart 5).3  Chart 5Masks On! Recent research has also cast doubt on the merits of closing schools. The China/WHO joint commission could not find a single instance during contact tracing where a child transmitted the virus to an adult. A study by the UK Royal College of Paediatrics provides further support to the claim that children are unlikely to be important vectors of transmission. The evidence includes a case study of a nine year-old boy who contracted the virus in the French Alps but fortunately failed to transmit it to any of the more than 170 people he had contact with in three separate schools.4  Along the same lines, there is evidence that the odds of adults catching the virus indoors is at least one order of magnitude higher than outdoors.5 This calls into question the strategy of states such as California of clearing out prisons of dangerous felons in order to make room for beachgoers.6 Upside Risks To The U: Medical Breakthroughs While a U-shaped economic recovery remains our base case, we see both significant upside and downside risks to this outcome. The best hope for an upside surprise is that a vaccine or effective treatment becomes available soon. There are already eight human vaccine trials underway, with another 100 in the planning stages. In the race to develop a vaccine, Oxford is arguably in the lead. Scientists at the university’s Jenner Institute have developed a genetically modified virus that is harmless to people, but which still prompts the immune system to produce antibodies that may be able to fight off COVID. The vaccine has already worked well on rhesus monkeys. If it proves effective on humans, researchers hope to have several million doses available by September. On the treatment side, Gilead’s remdesivir gained FDA approval for emergency use after early results showed that it helps hasten the recovery of coronavirus patients. Hydroxychloroquine, which President Trump has touted on numerous occasions, is the subject of dozens of clinical trials internationally. While evidence that hydroxychloroquine can treat the virus post-infection is thin, there is some data to suggest that it can work well as a prophylactic.7 Research is also being conducted on nearly 200 other treatments, including an improbable contender: famotidine, the compound found in the heartburn remedy Pepcid.8  Downside Risk: Too Open, Too Soon Chart 6The Lesson From The Spanish Flu: The Second Wave Could Be Worse Than The First As noted above, once the number of new cases drops to sufficiently low levels, some relaxation of containment measures can be achieved without reigniting the pandemic. That said, there is a clear danger that measures will end up being relaxed too aggressively and too soon. This is precisely what happened during the Spanish Flu (Chart 6). It has become customary to talk about the risk of a second wave of infections; however, the reality is that we have not even concluded the first wave. While the number of cases in New York has been falling, it has been rising in many other US states. As a result, the total number of new coronavirus cases nationwide has remained steady for the past five weeks (Chart 7). It is the same story globally: Falling caseloads in western Europe and East Asia have been offset by rising cases in countries such as Russia, India, and Brazil (Chart 8). Chart 7The Spread Of COVID-19 Has Not Been Contained Everywhere (I) Chart 8The Spread Of Covid-19 Has Not Been Contained Everywhere (II)   Chart 9Widespread Social Distancing Has Dampened The Spread Of All Flus And Colds At the heart of the problem is that COVID-19 remains a highly contagious disease. Most studies assign a Reproduction Number, R, of 3-to-4 to the virus. As a point of comparison, the Spanish flu is estimated to have had an R of 1.8. An R of 3.5 would require about 70% of the population to acquire herd immunity to keep the virus at bay.9 As discussed in Box 2, the “true” level of herd immunity may be substantially greater than that. At this point, if you come down with a cough and fever, you should assume you have COVID. As Chart 9 shows, social distancing measures have brought the number of viral respiratory illnesses down to almost zero in the United States. Up to 30% of common cold cases stem from the coronavirus family. Just like it would be foolhardy to assume that the common cold has been banished from the face of the earth, it would be unwise to assume that COVID will not return if containment measures are quickly lifted.   Downside Risk: Permanent Economic Damage Chart 10No Spike In Bankruptcies For Now There are a lot of asymmetries in economics: It is easier to lose a job than to find one; starting a new business is also more difficult than going bankrupt.  The good news so far is that bankruptcies have been limited and most unemployed workers have not been permanently laid off (Chart 10 and Chart 11). Thus, for the most part, the links that bind firms to workers have not been severed.   Chart 11Temporary Layoffs Account For Most Of The Recent Increase In Unemployment   Unfortunately, there is a risk that the economy will suffer permanent damage if unemployment remains high and economic activity stays depressed. For some sectors, such as airlines, long-term damage is nearly assured. It took a decade for real household spending on airlines to return to pre 9/11 levels (Chart 12). It could take even longer for the physiological scars of the pandemic to fade. While businesses outside the travel and hospitality sectors will see a quicker rebound, they could still experience subdued demand for as long as social distancing measures persist. Chart 129/11 Was A Big Shock For US Air Travel There is not much that fiscal policy can do to reverse the immediate hit to GDP from the pandemic. If people cannot work, they cannot produce. What fiscal stimulus can do is push enough money into the hands of households and firms to enable them to meet their financial obligations, while hopefully creating some pent-up demand that can be unleashed when businesses reopen. For now and for the foreseeable future, there is no need to tighten fiscal policy. The private sector in the major economies is generating plenty of savings with which governments can finance budget deficits. Indeed, standard economic theory suggests that if governments tried to “save more” by reducing budget deficits, total national savings would actually decline.10   Nevertheless, just as fiscal policy was prematurely tightened in many countries following the Great Recession, there is a risk that austerity measures will be reintroduced too quickly again. Likewise, calls to tighten monetary policy could grow louder. Just this week, Germany’s constitutional court ruled that the EU Court of Justice had overstepped its powers by failing to require the ECB to conduct an assessment of the “proportionality” of its controversial asset purchase policy. The German high court ordered the Bundesbank to suspend QE in three months unless the ECB Governing Council provides “documentation” showing it meets the criteria of proportionality. Among other things, the ruling could undermine the ECB’s newly launched €750 billion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP). Downside Risk: Geopolitical Tensions Had the virus originated anywhere else but China, President Trump could have made a political case for further deescalating the Sino-US trade war in an effort to shore up the US economy and stock market. Not only did that not happen, but the likelihood of a new clash between China and the US has gone up dramatically. Antipathy towards China is rising (Chart 13). As our geopolitical team has stressed, the US election is likely to be fought on who can sound tougher on China. With the economy on the ropes, Trump will try to paint Joe Biden as too passive and conflicted to stand up to China. Indeed, running as a “war president” may be Trump’s only chance of getting re-elected. Chart 13US Nationalism Is On The Rise Amid Broad-Based Anti-China Sentiment At the domestic political level, the pandemic has exacerbated already glaringly wide inequalities. While well-paid white-collar workers have been able to work from the comfort of their own homes, poorer blue-collar workers have either been furloughed or asked to continue working in a dangerous environment (in nursing homes or meat-packing plants, for example). It is not clear what the blowback from all this will be, but it is unlikely to be benign. Investment Implications Global equities and credit spreads have tracked the frequency of Google search queries for “coronavirus” remarkably well (Chart 14). As coronavirus queries rose, stocks plunged; as the number of queries subsided, stocks rallied. If there is a second wave of infections, anxiety about the virus is likely to grow again, leading to another sell-off in risk assets. Chart 14Joined At The Hip Chart 15Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term   Earnings estimates have come down, but are still above where we think they ought to be. This makes global equities vulnerable to a correction (Chart 15). Meanwhile, retail investors have been active buyers, eagerly gobblingup stocks such as American Airlines and Norwegian Cruise Lines that have fallen on hard times recently (Chart 16). They have also been active buyers of the USO oil ETF, which is down 80% year-to-date. When retail investors are trying to catch a falling knife, that is usually an indication that stocks have yet to reach a bottom. As such, we recommend that investors maintain a somewhat cautious stance on the near-term direction of stocks. Chart 16Retail Investors Keen To Buy The Dip   Chart 17Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon   Chart 18USD Is A Countercyclical Currency Looking further out, the spread between earnings yields and bond yields is wide enough to justify a modest overweight to stocks on a 12-month horizon (Chart 17). If global growth does end up rebounding, cyclicals should outperform defensives. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar will probably weaken (Chart 18). A weaker greenback, in turn, will boost commodity prices (Chart 19). Historically, stronger global growth and a softer dollar have translated into outperformance of non-US stocks relative to their US peers (Chart 20). Thus, investors should prepare to add international equity exposure to their portfolios later this year.   Chart 19Commodity Prices Usually Rise When The Dollar Weakens Chart 20Non-US Equities Tend To Outperform Their US Peers When Global Growth Is Improving And The Dollar Is Weakening   Box 1The Dynamics Of R Box 2Why Herd Immunity Is Not Enough Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Still Stuck In The Tree,” dated April 16, 2020. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Testing Times,” dated April 9, 2020. 3 Philip Anfinrud, Valentyn Stadnytskyi, et al., “Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light Scattering,” nejm.org (April 15, 2020); Jeremy Howard, Austin Huang, Li Zhiyuan, Zeynep Tufekci, Vladmir Zdimal, Helene-mari van der Westhuizen, et al., “Face Masks Against COVID-19: An Evidence Review,” Preprints.org, (April 12, 2020); and Liang Tian, Xuefei Li, Fei Qi, Qian-Yuan Tang, Viola Tang, Jiang Liu, Zhiyuan Li, Xingye Cheng, Xuanxuan Li, Yingchen Shi, Haiguang Liu, and Lei-Han Tang, “Calibrated Intervention and Containment of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” arxiv.org (April 2, 2020). 4 “COVID-19 – Research Evidence Summaries,” Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; and Alison Boast, Alasdair Munro, and Henry Goldstein, “An evidence summary of Paediatric COVID-19 literature,” Don’t Forget The Bubbles (2020). 5 Hiroshi Nishiura, Hitoshi Oshitani, Tetsuro Kobayashi, Tomoya Saito, Tomimasa Sunagawa, Tamano Matsui, Takaji Wakita, MHLW COVID-19 Response Team, and Motoi Suzuki, “Closed environments facilitate secondary transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” medRxiv (April 16, 2020). 6 “Coronavirus: Arrests as California beachgoers defy lockdown,” Skynews (April 26, 2020); and “High-risk sex offender rearrested days after controversial release from OC Jail,” abc7.com (May 1, 2020). 7 Sun Hee Lee, Hyunjin Son, and Kyong Ran Peck, “Can post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 be considered as an outbreak response strategy in long-term care hospitals?” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (April 25, 2020). 8 Brendan Borrell, “New York clinical trial quietly tests heartburn remedy against coronavirus,” Science (April 26, 2020). 9 In the simplest models, the herd immunity threshold is reached when P = 1-1/Ro, where P is the proportion of the population which has acquired immunity and Ro is the basic reproductive number. Assuming an Ro of 3.5, heard immunity will be achieved once more than 71.4% of the population has been infected (1-1/3.5). For further discussion on this, please refer to Global Investment Strategy, “Second Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook: World War V,” dated March 27, 2020. 10 It is easiest to understand this point by considering a closed economy where savings, by definition, equals investment. Savings is the sum of private and public savings. Suppose the economy is depressed and the government increases public savings by either raising taxes or cutting spending. Since this action will further depress the economy, private investment will fall even more. But, since investment must equal total savings, private savings must decline more than proportionately with any increase in public savings. This happens because tighter fiscal policy leads to lower GDP. It is difficult to save if one does not have a job. To the extent that lower GDP reduces employment, it also tends to reduce private-sector savings. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores

In lieu of the next weekly report I will be presenting the quarterly webcast ‘Leaving The Euro Would Be MAD, But Mad Things Can Happen’ on Thursday 14 May at 10.00AM EDT (3.00PM BST, 4.00PM CEST, 10.00PM HKT). As usual, the webcast will take a TED talk format lasting 18 minutes, followed by live questions. Don’t miss it. Highlights For the time being, stick with the very successful strategies of: Overweighting higher yielding US T-bonds versus negative yielding German bunds and Swiss bonds. Overweighting technology and healthcare versus banks and materials. Overweighting growth versus value. Overweighting the S&P 500 versus the Eurostoxx 50. Overweighting Germany, France, and Switzerland in a European equity portfolio. The big caveat is that these strategies are highly correlated. Fractal trade: long euro area personal products versus healthcare. Feature Chart I-1Bond Yields And Commodity Prices Are Correlating To One Chatting with friends, family and clients it seems that our lives under lockdown and social distancing have lost much of their differentiation across time and space. Wherever in the world we live, whatever we do, our days and lives are correlating to one. Interestingly, the financial markets have experienced a similar loss of differentiation. In the coronavirus world, markets are also correlating to one. Financial Markets Are Not Complicated One of our abiding investment mantras is that: Financial markets are complex, but they are not complicated. The words complex and complicated are sometimes used synonymously, but they mean different things. Complex means something that is not fully predictable or analysable. Complicated means something that is made up of many parts. Financial markets are not complicated. The financial markets are not complicated because a few parts drive the relative prices of everything, though these parts themselves are complex. Identify and understand these few parts and you will get all your investment decisions right: asset allocation, sector allocation, style allocation, regional allocation, country allocation. This has become even more so this year as our response to the coronavirus has correlated all our lives and economic behaviour to one. One fundamental part is the bond yield. The collapse in commodity prices, more than any other real-time indicator, illustrates the demand destruction resulting from coronavirus-induced lockdowns and social distancing. Bond yields have plunged in lockstep with this demand destruction, given the implications for higher unemployment as well as lower inflation – the two key tenets that drive central bank policy (Chart of the Week). The plunging bond yield, in turn, has driven the underperformance of banks (Chart I-2), for two reasons. First, to the extent that a depressed bond yield reflects a low-growth economy, it also reflects a poorer outlook for bank credit growth, which effectively constitutes a bank’s ‘sales’. Second, a depressed bond yield means a flat or inverted yield curve, which squeezes bank net interest (profit) margins. Chart I-2Banks And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One Conversely, the plunging bond yield has signified an environment in which big tech and healthcare equities outperform (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4), also for two reasons. First, big tech and healthcare sales are more protected against a sudden dip in the economy. Second, their cashflows are weighted further into the future, and so their ‘net present values’ rise more when bond yields plunge. Chart I-3Tech (Inverted) And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One Chart I-4Healthcare (Inverted) And Bond Yields Are Correlating To One A declining bond yield also signifies an environment in which basic materials equities underperform, as our first chart powerfully illustrates. So, if you call the bond yield right, you will get your asset allocation between cash and bonds right, but you will also your equity sector allocation right. And if you get your equity sector allocation right you will automatically get your value versus growth style allocation right too. At an overarching level, the value versus growth allocation is nothing more than the performance of value sectors, like banks, versus growth sectors, like big tech and healthcare (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Value Versus Growth = Banks Versus Tech Furthermore, you will also get your regional and country allocation right. This is because each major stock market has distinguishing ‘long’ sectors in which it contains up to a quarter of its total market capitalisation, as well as distinguishing ‘short’ sectors in which it has a significant under-representation. The combination of this long sector and short sector gives each equity index its distinguishing fingerprint which drives relative performance (Table I-1): Table I-1The Sector Fingerprints Of Major Regional Stock Markets FTSE 100 = long financials and energy, short technology. Eurostoxx 50 = long financials, short technology and healthcare. Nikkei 225 = long industrials, short financials and energy. S&P 500 = long technology and healthcare, short materials. MSCI Emerging Markets = long financials, short healthcare. Specifically, the distinguishing fingerprints of the Eurostoxx 50 and the S&P 500 mean that the Eurostoxx 50 has a 12 percent over-representation to financials and materials at the expense of an 18 percent under-representation to technology and healthcare. It follows that if banks and materials underperform technology and healthcare, the Eurostoxx 50 must underperform the S&P 500. Everything else is irrelevant (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Euro Area Versus US = Banks Versus Tech The same principle applies to the stock markets within Europe. Relative performance comes from nothing more than the stock market’s long and short sector fingerprint combined with sector performance (Table I-2 and Table I-3). Table I-2The Sector Fingerprints Of Euro Area Stock Markets Table I-3The Sector Fingerprints Of Non Euro Area European Stock Markets For example, if healthcare outperforms then its overrepresentation in the stock markets of Switzerland and Denmark means that they must outperform too (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Likewise, if technology outperforms, then the technology-heavy Netherlands stock market must outperform (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Long Switzerland = Long Healthcare Chart I-8Long Denmark = Long Healthcare Chart I-9Long Netherlands = Long Tech All Investment Strategies Are Highly Correlated To repeat, financial markets are not complicated. If you get the over-arching decision(s) right, you will get everything right. The unfortunate corollary is that if you get the over-arching decision wrong you will get everything wrong. Asset allocation, sector allocation, style allocation, regional allocation, and country allocation are correlating to one. We really wish that financial markets were more complicated – because then asset allocation, sector allocation, style allocation, regional allocation and country allocation would be independent investment decisions which offered diversification at the total portfolio level. But the charts in this report should make it crystal clear that all these separate decisions are correlating to one. They are all really the same decision. Today, the decision on where bond yields are headed is particularly tough because they have already come down a lot in a very short space of time. Yet we do not foresee a sustained backup in yields for three reasons: First, even if governments ease lockdowns and reopen economies, demand will remain depressed. Most people are isolating themselves or socially distancing not because their governments are forcing them to, but because they fear infection. The easing of lockdowns, per se, will not remove that fear. And if workers are forced back into jobs when it is unsafe, then infection rates will start to rise again. Second, unless commodity prices rise sharply in the coming months the base effect of commodity prices will put downward pressure on 12-month inflation rates later in the summer (Chart I-10). To the extent that central banks focus on – and target – these totemic annual inflation rates, it will be very difficult to turn hawkish. On the contrary, there may be pressure to turn even more dovish. Chart I-10The Base Effect Will Weigh On Inflation Later This Year Third, our most trusted technical indicator is not flashing the red signal that bonds are dangerously overbought, as they were in January 2019, August 2019, and early-March 2020 (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Bonds Are Not Yet At A Technical Tipping Point So, for the time being, we are sticking with the very successful strategies of: Overweighting higher yielding US T-bonds versus negative yielding German bunds and Swiss bonds. Overweighting technology and healthcare versus banks and materials. Overweighting growth versus value. Overweighting the S&P 500 versus the Eurostoxx 50. Overweighting Germany, France, and Switzerland in a European equity portfolio. The big caveat is that these strategies are highly correlated. Fractal Trading System* With markets correlating to one, it is becoming more difficult to find trades which are not correlated with the over-arching driver. Hence, this week’s recommended trade is a pair-trade between two defensive sectors: long euro area personal products versus healthcare. The profit target is 7 percent, with a symmetrical stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-12Euro Area Personal Products Vs. Health Care 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