A second wave comes crashing down

Markets have been unsettled for some time about the prospect of a second Covid wave and they finally capitulated this week. The market collapse on Wednesday, which saw the S&P500 fall more than 3.5% and the DAX fall more than 4%, came on the day that Germany introduced a stringent set of national lockdown restrictions involving a one-month shutdown of bars and restaurants which is due to come into effect on Monday. France also announced a national lockdown which came into effect today. It may not be quite as stringent as that enforced earlier in the year but it is still pretty drastic. As President Macron said in his TV address, “the virus is circulating in France at a speed that even the most pessimistic forecast didn’t foresee … The measures we’ve taken have turned out to be insufficient to counter a wave that’s affecting all Europe.” Given the renewed spread of the disease, it seems only a matter of time before the UK is forced to follow suit.

What does a second wave mean for the global economy? Throughout this year, most reputable forecast institutions have presented a range of alternative scenarios around the baseline and it is worth digging into some of the details of the IMF’s forecast released last week. The IMF baseline looks for a 4.4% contraction in global GDP this year followed by a rebound of 5.2% in 2021 (in my humble opinion this sounds like a stretch since it implies that all the damage done to output in 2020 will be recouped next year). However, whilst the downside scenario garnered rather fewer headlines it was nonetheless illustrative. It is based on the assumption that Covid proves difficult to contain, with a significant drag on activity in the second half of 2020 extending into 2021. In addition, the IMF assumes that progress on finding effective treatment is rather slower than currently assumed, with a delay in the process of finding a vaccine and the requirement that social distancing measures have to remain in place for a long time to come.

Under these circumstances the global growth rate next year could come in as low as 0.9% versus the baseline projection of 5.2% and it takes until 2025 before output is back on the path implied by the baseline (chart 1). It is also notable that in this scenario emerging markets take a larger than proportional hit. This accords with my long held view that since EMs are acutely dependent on a recovery in their main export markets, the IMF is too optimistic on how quickly output in Asia will rebound in the baseline projection.

As far as markets are concerned , we have been here before. The equity declines registered on Wednesday may not be the biggest daily falls this year but they are not far away from some of the dramatic swings recorded in March. On the one hand there is some scope for cautious optimism in that we have a rather better idea of what we are letting ourselves in for. Accordingly, equity indices may not fall as sharply since we are operating in less unfamiliar territory. Against that, markets may be on the verge of capitulation as the pandemic proves not to be the short, sharp shock that was expected in the spring. As is usual at times of equity market stress the tech sector comes in for the closest scrutiny (chart 2). In addition to concerns that the pandemic may take the edge off demand, the fact that Apple’s iPhone sales and Twitter’s user growth both missed estimates added to the sense of market uncertainty. Next week’s US Presidential election may have longer-lasting consequences for the tech sector if Joe Biden is elected to the White House and embarks on a programme of cutting the tech companies down to size.

However, for the time being I tend to take a more optimistic line. For one thing we should not read too much into equity volatility just a few days ahead of the most important US election for years. Part of the recent wobbles may reflect some position squaring ahead of the main event. Moreover,  central banks are pumping in liquidity on an unprecedented scale. The Fed has increased its balance sheet by two trillion dollars this year, primarily due to purchases of Treasury securities which will suffice to keep bond yields at ultra-low levels. Here in Europe, current estimates suggest that EMU governments will issue €1.2 trillion of gross debt next year but maturing bonds and interest payments could reduce the net figure to €405bn. Even without the promised monetary expansion the ECB is expected to buy €460bn of debt in the secondary market – more than planned issuance. This downward pressure on global yields when plugged into a simple discounted cash flow model ought to be enough to put a floor under equity markets.

But even if markets do hold up, the economy will take a long time to recover from the scarring effects of Covid. In the US, for example, the unemployment rate currently stands at 7.9%, twice as high as in February prior to the pandemic whilst employment is around 11 million below pre-recession levels. What makes me somewhat uneasy is that we have entered a period where there is a mounting disparity between what is happening to markets and conditions in the real economy which underpin them.

This will be manifest in elevated P/E ratios. I have frequently referred to the Shiller trailing 10-year P/E ratio for the S&P500 as a measure which smooths out cyclical variations and have noted that over recent years it has remained very high in a historical context (chart 3). In just the last few months it has rebounded back to pre-recession highs following a dip in the wake of market panic in March. This is a clear illustration of the extent to which traditional valuation metrics no longer apply and for the foreseeable future the equity market will be running on the back of the support given by central banks. Given the lack of clarity from the normal pricing metrics it could be a very bumpy few months for markets.

Real time economic reality

As the Covid-19 horror unfolds before us, it becomes clear with each passing day that this is a humanitarian crisis the like of which none of us have experienced in our lifetime. The economic consequences are a second order issue but over the coming weeks and months we will realise just what a huge hit the economy has taken. Central banks and governments are doing their best to mitigate the worst impact of the downturn, but they can never do enough. But just how bad is the downturn likely to be?

I have spent the last week trawling through up-to-date high frequency data to get a sense of where the UK economy stands. It does not make for pretty reading. Without going through all the indicators, one of the obvious places to start is with electricity output, taken from the National Grid at four hourly intervals. It is difficult to draw direct inferences for output given that factors such as temperature play a significant role in determining demand, but the fall in output following the introduction of the UK lockdown on the evening of 23 March is very marked (chart below). It is particularly noticeable that output during the day has fallen sharply whereas off-peak output has not, which is indicative of the collapse in demand from businesses that would otherwise be open and consuming electricity, such as shops and offices not to mention the power hungry manufacturing sector. A rough estimate suggests that output is down by around 3-4% compared with pre-lockdown trends, which I reckon is consistent with a GDP decline of up to 15%.

Wherever you look there is evidence of an economy which has simply hit the buffers. Rail journeys are down 95% on this time last year whilst the number of bus passengers is down 88%. People are also using their cars much less, with overall traffic numbers down 71%, though on the plus side those that do have to travel on the roads find that congestion has eased considerably (chart below).

The retail sector has also taken a significant hit. Footfall is down by around 80% compared to a year ago whilst the collapse in spending in the leisure sector has been almost total, with restaurants and pubs having been shut for two weeks. My calculations suggest that consumer spending in Q2 could fall by up 20% which is likely to mean a double-digit collapse in GDP growth. As workers are laid off, some temporarily but some perhaps permanently, we are likely to see an unprecedented rise in unemployment. We already know that the number of claimants for Universal Credit rose by almost a million in the second half of March, although since this includes people claiming in-work benefits as well those making unemployment claims, it is difficult to know how this will impact on the labour market figures. However a conservative estimate suggests that the jobless figures for April could show a rise of up to 2% in the unemployment rate. We have never seen such a sharp jump: the usual pattern once an economy falls into recession is for unemployment to pick up with a lag as the corporate sector adjusts slowly.

My guess is that this will lead to an annual reduction of around 6.5% in real GDP this year. To put this into context, based on the BoE’s long-term historical databank which contains GDP data back to 1700, this would represent the sixth worst output decline in the 319 years for which estimates are available. We have to go back to the immediate aftermath of WW1 for anything remotely like it. Faced with an output reduction of this magnitude, my concern remains that any economic recovery will be a protracted affair. Company earnings will take a huge hit which will shape their business practices for a long time to come. In many instances this will force a strategy rethink with attendant consequences for investment and employment. Unlike the post-2008 period which was characterised by companies being propped up by low interest rates and the substitution of labour for capital, the coming years may well see a more pronounced period of Schumpeterian creative destruction. 

Business models which rely on complex supply chains will likely be overhauled. If we had concerns about rolling back the globalisation trend before, the post-crisis world will almost certainly produce a sea change. The inability of countries like the US and UK to produce sufficient personal protection equipment for front line medical staff can be expected to spark a debate about the extent to which western economies rely too heavily on foreign producers to provide the manufactured goods they need. Suggestions that the likes of India are withholding drugs for use at home that they would otherwise export will further fan the flames of economic nationalism.

I will deal with the fiscal fallout in more detail another time but it is clear that we are going to be awash with government debt for years to come. It is unlikely we will be able to grow fast enough to significantly reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio given that we are faced with an ageing population, which leaves us with two alternatives. Either governments will have to embark on a policy of major austerity, which is likely to be highly unpopular given the experience of the past decade, or the real value of debt will have to be inflated away. Central banks have spent the past 20 years lauding their achievement of taming inflation and tell us today that they have no intention of relaxing their vigilance. I would not be so sure: Policymakers have a habit of changing their mind if the circumstances demand it.

Flexibility will be the name of the game in future as electorates make different demands of their governments than they have in recent years. We should be no illusions as to the profound social and economic changes that are to come. But first we have to get through the current crisis!