Doug Casey on the Coming Bond and Real Estate Collapse and Where the Next Bubble Will Be

by Doug Casey




International Man: The bond super bubble continues to get bigger. Interest rates seem to be headed even lower from here. Is this the blow-off top in the bond market?

What do you think will cause central banks to lose control and for interest rates to head higher?

Doug Casey: Even with the Fed bailing out major institutions—which it will continue to do, just like back in 2008–2009—the fundamentals underlying many businesses are so bad that a lot of them are going to collapse. I’m not just talking about the obvious candidates—retail, restaurants, airlines—but across the board.

As that starts happening, people will realize that the cat’s really out of the bag, that this isn’t just another cyclical downturn—it’s genuine depression. And almost everything the government is doing is not only the wrong thing but the exact opposite of the right thing.

The worst possible place for money today may not even be the stock market, as dangerous as it is. It’s the bond market. Bonds aren’t just in a bubble. They’re in a hyper-bubble.

The bond hyper-bubble is serious because there’s so much debt in the world at such low interest rates. When reality reasserts itself, interest rates start heading up—not just to levels that show a real yield after inflation but levels from the early ’80s, which ranged from 10% to 20%. The bond market is heading toward its long-overdue collapse.

It will take down pension funds and insurance companies with it as well as the property market, which is built on a mountain of debt. It’s going to be really ugly. Most of their assets are in bonds. And many pension funds—particularly those for public employees—are already severely underfunded.

That’s really serious because we’re not at the bottom of a stock or bond bear market, where insolvency would be understandable. We’re at the top of bubbles in both, and things are as good as they could possibly get. As a consequence, a lot of cities and states are either going to have to increase contributions a lot or cut retirement benefits.

Regarding bonds themselves, as an investment class, they’re nothing like what they used to be.

Bonds are now a triple threat to your wealth—currency risk, interest rate risk, and solvency risk.

In the long run, currency risk is the most certain and perhaps the deadliest.

Despite the current demand for dollars—debtors are desperate for dollars to service and roll over their debts—the dollar will reach its intrinsic value.

The US Government, as the world’s biggest debtor, is most in need of dollars; but can get all it wants by selling its debt to its central bank, the Federal Reserve.

Why make a bet on the value of the dollar?

Second is interest rate risk. Interest rates are at all-time lows, substantially below the rate of inflation everywhere, and actually negative on about $17 trillion of European and Japanese government debt. I used to think interest rates below zero were metaphysically impossible but forgot that we’re now living in Bizarro World.

Artificially low rates are highly destructive. Low rates encourage people to do things that they ordinarily wouldn’t dream of because they think they can afford it.

That’s because of massive misallocations of capital and malinvestment. The government needs low rates since interest on $20-some trillion is a major cost.

Low rates also discourage people from saving. They make normally sensible folk act like foolish grasshoppers. Instead of setting aside wealth for the winter, like wise ants, it encourages them to consume today and even live out of capital by borrowing. When winter comes, grasshoppers starve. You know the old fable.

The third threat is solvency risk. With all the debt in the world, a lot of people just aren’t going to be able to pay their debts. This includes governments.

For example, the Argentine government can’t pay its debts. The US government is just a cycle or two behind the Argentine government. Of course, since the US dollar is a reserve currency, the US Government has a lot more runway before it crashes. But it’s going to lose reserve status. The dollar will be replaced not by another fiat currency, but by gold.

International Man: The global pandemic seems to have changed the value proposition for many to live in big cities. What do you think the effect of this hysteria will be on the real estate market?

Doug Casey: This is one of the second-order effects of the hysteria that I’ve previously discussed. The recent rent protests are going to roll over into a third-order effect. The government will say, "It’s okay. You don’t have to pay your rent or mortgage because we can’t have 20 million more families living under bridges. We’ll pay it for you." The same goes for utilities. This is something a lot of politicians are talking about right now.

That said, there’s an increasing tendency to get out of the big city and move to small towns, or maybe the countryside. Not the suburbs, though. The burbs of cities are the worst of both worlds in some ways.

Taxes are a huge consideration when it comes to real estate. With unemployment as high as it is right now—and it’s going to stay high—every kind of tax revenue is collapsing. Meanwhile, their expenses are exploding with unemployment and related benefits.

Unfortunately, government employees aren’t being fired or laid off at anywhere near the rate of the private sector. The government always takes care of its own, of course.

Pelosi is trying to get a near trillion-dollar bill through Congress to bail out state and local governments. We can only hope it doesn’t pass, so they’ll be forced to trim their bloated employee rolls. If that happens, however, they’ll cut back on desirable and essential services first, so the people will feel it, and scream for Federal funds.

It’s a bad idea to stay in the city or the suburbs. I’ve said that for years, but the current epidemic of riots underlines that. As does the trend of working at home and doing business electronically. It’s smarter to be in a small town, which has some cohesiveness, or in the countryside.

Amazon and Walmart, FedEx and UPS have made it quite possible and convenient to live anywhere now. You no longer have to live in the city to take advantage of most of the things that cities provide. Cities, at least in the US, are all in decline anyway. They’re crowded, noisy, dirty, expensive, and dangerous.

It’s unfortunate in many ways, though. The disappearance of cities was one major indicator of the decline of the Western Roman Empire in the 3rd through 6th centuries. But that gets us into a gloomy conversation about the collapse of Western Civilization itself. Right now, we’re just talking about nearby financial and economic problems.

The real estate bubble has primarily been in major cities like New York, LA, and San Francisco, and their equivalents around the world. In Vancouver—which was an ultra-hot market—transactions now are happening at 40–50% discounts from the peak. Property prices in fashionable big cities are a bubble that’s bursting as we speak.

International Man: Many retirees and savers hold large positions in risky stocks and junk bonds in a search for yield. What do you say to these people?


Doug Casey: First of all, the average guy generally gets killed in the markets. Even in a bull market, he only gets the table scraps, the poorest and worst of everything.

Right now, the public thinks everything will be just fine. It’s not. In a depression, yields that are both high and safe are like unicorns or hen’s teeth. Oh, and speaking of unicorns, the public is looking, en masse, for the next Facebook, Amazon, or Apple.

They’re spending ridiculous amounts of money on highly promoted newsletters and all kinds of scams. I don’t doubt infomercials pushing magic trading programs are going to show up on late-night TV next.

Tech stocks for people who know nothing about technology and trading services for people who know nothing about the markets. It’s perverse. But the public often thinks the party is still on—they’ve heard about 8,357% and 10,523% returns—and pile in like lemmings.

John Q Public doesn’t realize that he’s going to get eaten up by bid-ask spreads. He doesn’t realize that he’s going to get killed by the commissions on both sides. Even if the person he’s taking advice from is right, the average guy gets and acts on the information too late.

Lastly, he doesn’t have the psychology that it takes to be a trader, a speculator, or even an investor. These are all different things, incidentally. What the latecomers are is gamblers—but they don’t know it.

That is what people are doing in a desperate attempt to outrun the collapse—and they’re making their situation worse.

Trying to trade is one thing. The other is buying all kinds of tech stocks, which always happens late in the game. People often pile into tech stocks after the bubble has broken, but they don't know that it has burst.

The old expression "high-tech, big wreck" is going to become very obvious in the future. Most tech companies have to constantly raise lots and lots of money. They’re science projects. Most of them are burning matches—very much like mining exploration stocks. How many are going to be the next Amazon or Facebook? Most of them are going to wind up trading for about zero.

What do I say to these people?

"Please don’t do it. You’re just going to lose the rest of your money."

International Man: What speculative opportunities do you see in this environment?

Doug Casey: Unfortunately, the main opportunities are speculative. All the phony money being created will create other bubbles.

The question is, where will those bubbles be? They’re not easy to identify.

My guess is that the next bubble is going to be driven by both fear and greed as well as prudence into gold and, to a lesser degree, into silver. And, for different reasons, into commodities as a group.

That’s where I would look.

Gold is no longer at giveaway prices like it was in 2001, at $250. It’s been an excellent place to be for a long time. But it’s going a lot higher.

There are about 2,000 gold mining stocks. Or, at least, companies that claim to be gold mining, gold development, or gold exploration stocks. These are three different things. That distinction should be made.

Some of them are still very depressed right now.

Gold mining—which is generally a risky, crappy business—is one of the few profitable businesses out there.

Of mining companies in production today, most have "all-in sustaining costs" of about $1,000 an ounce, but gold is trading at $1,700.

Fund managers—most of whom, like Buffet and Munger, neither like nor understand gold—are going to start piling into these things. So will the public, but much later.

I think this is a rare opportunity. This is going to be the next bubble.

Forget about common stocks, bonds, and real estate. There’s plenty of time for conventional investments after the economy bottoms.


There’s a way to make sense of this rally, as long as there’s a swifter economic recovery than anyone thinks posible.


Flying toward our perfect future?

Bad News? Buy Stocks
 
What’s going on? Stock markets were up almost everywhere to start the month. This was despite a list of bad-news items that might be expected to push down share prices in normal circumstances:
 
  • China has paused imports of U.S. agricultural goods, which it undertook as part of last year’s “phase one” agreement to avert a trade war. This issue dominated international investing throughout 2019, when news as bad as this would inevitably have caused a major “risk-off” spasm.
  • Gilead Sciences Inc.’s share price took a sharp tumble after results showed that its Remdesivir drug might not be as useful in treating Covid-19 as had been hoped. Earlier in the pandemic, more positive results had not only sent Gilead’s share price soaring, but also lifted the entire market;

 Gilead's stock fell after a disappointing test result
 
 
  • Global Covid-19 infections, outside the U.S., hit a new record. Brazil in particular appears to be in a very dangerous position. The following chart is from Bianco Research.


relates to Stocks' Extreme Disconnect Demands a Perfect V
  • The rally in West Texas Intermediate crude paused as investors pondered whether meetings to thrash out a continuation of supply caps beyond the end of this month would happen on schedule. The breakdown of talks in early March triggered the worst week for the markets this year.

  • The U.S. is currently undergoing a spasm of civil unrest on a scale not seen since at least 1968, the year of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. New York City is under curfew as I write. 

Add to all this that equities are rallying while most other asset classes are failing to confirm an expansion ahead. Bond yields and industrial commodities remain low; gold continues to sit at levels it hasn't seen since 2012.

We can mention all the usual caveats: Economic growth doesn’t correlate with stock market returns in the short run, and generations of equity investors have been conditioned to “buy when there’s blood in the streets.”

Still, a disconnect this extreme between nightmarish scenes on the streets of the U.S. and a global pandemic, on the one hand, and a continuing rally in the stock market, is something truly special.

This tweet, from a user who hides behind a pseudonym, sums up my own feelings almost exactly: “After watching markets for 25 years, I have to say, this is the most extreme disconnect I have ever witnessed with regards to price against P/E, massive unemployment and drop in GDP, riots, failing trade wars, frauds, income inequality, etc.”
So, what can explain this? I don’t think ultimately that this rally makes sense, and I definitely didn't expect anything so strong and sustained. If there is a justification, it goes as follows.

Equity prices are dependent on future earnings, and on the interest rate we use to discount them. The rally in share prices is the product of well-founded expectations of higher corporate profits and low interest rates into the future.

Let’s look at how well this stacks up:
 
The Discount Rate

The Federal Reserve has made it known that it is actively discussing yield curve control — intervening to ensure that yields at particular points on the curve remain at a given low level. And, to quote my Bloomberg Opinion colleague James Bianco, “the market is behaving as though yield curve control is already taking place. 10-year yields have been stuck in a tight range for two months.”


Ten- and two-year yields have  been spectacularly stable for two months now, while all is chaos around them. The 10-year yield, in particular, is behaving exactly as we would expect if someone very rich was intervening to keep it between 0.6% and 0.7%. This is very different from the bond market’s behavior in preceding years:

Bond volatility, as most popularly measured by the BofA MOVE index, is lower than when it started the year. Equity volatility, as measured by the CBOE VIX index, is still double the level at which it started the year. In such alarming and uncertain circumstances, low yields aren’t surprising; such steady and unmoving yields are remarkable:

Equity volatility remains elevated; bond volatility is back to normal


So investors are making a clear bet that the next few years will see financial repression — deliberate intervention to force the public and the corporate sector to lend money to the government at uneconomically low interest rates. This has happened before, notably in the years after World War II. In such conditions, equities can be relied on to beat bonds.
That doesn’t mean we should all feel comfortable about Uncle Sam forcing us to lend to him at rock-bottom rates. This isn’t a great basis on which to invest. As Bianco puts it: “Yield curve control is nothing more than price fixing. The Fed sets the price of interest rates and then uses its balance sheet in an unlimited fashion to keep interest rates at that level.”

There is also the problem that, to quote Ian Harnett of London’s Absolute Strategy Research Ltd., “financial repression means repression of financials.” A forcibly flat yield curve makes it very hard for banks to make money. And if banks aren’t making money, it grows harder for them to extend credit and fuel economic growth. Repression may be a relatively painless way to pay for the money the government had to throw at the coronavirus problem; it doesn’t augur well for growth or a vibrant stock market:

relates to Stocks' Extreme Disconnect Demands a Perfect V


Future Earnings

As I have pointed out before, prospective earnings, as in the multiple of expected earnings for this calendar year, are close to the all-time high set at the height of the dotcom bubble. This is somewhat misleading, though. Everyone knows this year’s earnings will be terrible. A very high multiple of this year’s earnings can be justified if there is valid confidence in a rebound next year.

If we look at past nosedives, a V-shaped recovery doesn't seem so unlikely. These numbers come from David Kostin, chief U.S. equity strategist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. This is what happened to U.S earnings during previous postwar U.S. recessions, along with Goldman’s base and worst-case scenarios for the current one:

relates to Stocks' Extreme Disconnect Demands a Perfect V


And this shows us the subsequent recoveries. After falling an average of 13%, earnings bounced back by 15% over the next four quarters, essentially forming a perfect V:

relates to Stocks' Extreme Disconnect Demands a Perfect V


If next year’s earnings turn out to be in line with Goldman’s baseline forecasts, then the market is trading at a high but reasonable 18 times 2021 earnings. It is higher than that if the more bearish estimates from buy-side firms are right; and at an all-time high of 26, significantly above even the worst excesses of 2000, if the worst-case scenario is correct.


So the market is plainly working on the assumption that things will turn out about as well as can reasonably be expected:


relates to Stocks' Extreme Disconnect Demands a Perfect V

Markets are indeed braced for an almost perfect V-shape, based on how expectations for standard consensus earnings have moved this year, as this chart from Andrew Lapthorne, chief quantitative strategist at Societe Generale SA, shows. By the end of next year, earnings will be higher than they were in 2019, and barely any lower than was expected at the end of March:

relates to Stocks' Extreme Disconnect Demands a Perfect V

Breaking this down further, however, Lapthorne also looks at “flash” estimates — those most recently changed, and which presumably most fully take into account all the information now available. This is a relatively quiet time for revisions, as the first-quarter earnings reporting season is over, but the picture is clear.

Markets are braced for horrendous growth this year, particularly in Europe, and a strong rebound in 2021, again particularly in Europe. Overall, it looks as though earnings are expected to be a bit more than 5% lower next year than in 2019. This makes the fact that the S&P 500 is now higher than it was at any point in the first 10 months of last year a little difficult to explain, low interest rates or no low interest rates:

relates to Stocks' Extreme Disconnect Demands a Perfect V


For a more dramatic presentation of how estimates have moved, this chart shows both the overall consensus change and the flash revision. Technology and a few defensive sectors are relatively unscathed, but expectations for many more economically sensitive sectors are still savagely reduced.

This means there is room for a recovery, though estimates for some sectors are continuing to fall. If the market is also banking on yield curve control to keep rates low, it is hard to see how dreadful falls in earnings like this can be avoided for financial sectors.

relates to Stocks' Extreme Disconnect Demands a Perfect V

All of this is against the backdrop of a market that entered the crisis looking expensive, and of very high policy uncertainty, coupled with very low consumer confidence. It does look as though reopening in the U.S. is happening relatively smoothly thus far, in terms of the number of coronavirus cases if not in terms of the situation in the streets.

If it turns out that we can put the virus behind us much sooner and more completely than many experts have led us to believe, then there is a decent chance of doing better than these earnings numbers, in which case the current pricing won’t look mad. But it is a narrow route:

relates to Stocks' Extreme Disconnect Demands a Perfect V


Kostin has a diplomatic way of putting this which I think makes sense:
From a fundamental perspective, we believe the current index level implies expectations of an achievable but optimistic path of normalization, and that meeting that expectation would validate the existing market level rather than push it substantially higher. At the same time, numerous medical, economic, and political risks dot the investment landscape.
In other words, this market isn’t quite as utterly crazy as it might look at first. But it is priced for perfection amid conditions of extreme uncertainty, and risks are almost all to the downside.

The most likely way for this disconnect to be resolved is by share prices falling again. Let us all hope that it is resolved by a swifter recovery from the lockdown conditions and in the economy, than anyone now thinks possible, ideally coupled with a historic resolution of America’s deep problem of racial injustice.

The latter alternative looks less likely. 
For my fellow New Yorkers, the only sensible advice at the time of writing is not to go outside. Curfew has started. For everyone else, I recommend a brilliant documentary on Netflix called Crip Camp, about a 1960s summer camp in the Catskills that was specially for the disabled. Many alumni went on to be leaders in the struggle for disabled rights.

It’s a charming but also an inspiring and surprising story. If they could overcome some of the horrible disabilities that nature had forced on them, then the rest of us can put up with being cooped up inside.

Why This Time Was Different

In 2003, the world contained the SARS epidemic to Southeast Asia and ended the crisis by that July. Based on the limited information currently available, four factors help to explain the difference between then and now.

Carl Bildt

bildt76_ANTHONY WALLACEAFP via Getty Images_chinacoronavirus


STOCKHOLM – How will the COVID-19 mega-crisis end? I don’t know, and nor does anyone else. So, perhaps it would be more productive to reflect on how it started. By addressing that issue, we might be able to improve our chances of averting another pandemic in the future.

The current crisis is hardly the first of its kind. In early 2003, another coronavirus – SARS-CoV-1 – suddenly spread from southern China across Southeast Asia, but it ultimately remained regionally contained.

Later, we learned that SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) had been spreading in southern China for some time, and that Chinese officials had been reluctant even to admit its existence and issue a warning, let alone take appropriate measures to contain it. Only after the epidemic had reached Hong Kong, a key global financial hub, did alarm bells go off.

Nonetheless, coordinated international action soon followed. There was a sharp drop in air traffic in the region, and many areas were cordoned off. The World Health Organization’s leaders at the time criticized China for its slow response, and the Chinese health minister was duly fired. By early July, the WHO was able to declare the crisis over, lifting its remaining recommendations for restrictive measures. The world returned to normal.

Why have we failed so spectacularly in 2020 after succeeding in 2003? Any answer to that question will be tentative, because there is much that we still don’t know about COVID-19 or the early months of the outbreak. Still, I see four factors that might help to explain the difference between now and then.

First, it took time for Chinese authorities to wake up to what was happening, sound the alarm, and start taking resolute action. From what we know, COVID-19 first emerged in China in mid-November 2019, and had been detected spreading through Wuhan by mid-December, when reports started circulating in Taiwan. Finally, on December 31, 2019, China alerted the WHO of a potential outbreak.

During those early weeks, local authorities in Wuhan sought to cover up the outbreak, including by concealing information from the central government in Beijing. We may never know just how much time was lost to Wuhan officials’ obfuscation. But we do know that after China’s first report to the WHO, it took another three weeks for Chinese authorities to lock down Hubei province. By that point, many residents had left for the Chinese New Year holiday, spreading the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, to other parts of the country (meanwhile, Wuhan allowed street celebrations to proceed).

A second factor that makes this crisis different from the one in 2003 is that SARS-CoV-2 seems to be much more contagious than its predecessor. This has magnified the consequences of Chinese foot-dragging. During those initial 5-7 weeks, and in the weeks after the WHO sounded the alarm, when the rest of the world did very little, COVID-19 was able to spread much farther and wider than SARS ever did, and the result has been far deadlier.

The third, related, factor is that the world of 2019-2020 is much more interconnected than the world of 2002-2003 was. Wuhan, an inland city with 11 million people, has sometimes been called the Chicago of China, owing to its wide-ranging integration into global supply chains. Over the past few decades, the city has developed into a major hub. Before the lockdown pandemic, there were six flights per week from Wuhan to Paris (as well as five to Rome and three to London), and frequent non-stop flights to San Francisco and New York. What happened in Wuhan did not stay in Wuhan.

The last factor that cannot be ignored is the geopolitical dimension. The world was already falling into a persistent state of confrontation and disarray long before the COVID-19 crisis erupted. Back in 2003, it was only natural that the international community would come together quickly to coordinate a joint response. But in 2020, that scenario wasn’t even on the table. Even after the virus had gone global, US President Donald Trump’s administration remained in denial. And to this day, it has not made even the slightest gesture toward providing global leadership.

America’s historic abdication of its traditional role has trickled down, infecting most of the established instruments of global cooperation. When the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, it might already have been too late. But the confused and flailing reaction from the United States and other major countries has clearly made matters far worse.

My tentative conclusion is that these four factors together explain why this episode is so much more severe than the SARS epidemic. A novel coronavirus has plunged the world into a mega-crisis the likes of which we have not seen in modern times. We should consider what that says about the state of global governance.

Again, nobody knows how this crisis will end. But by understanding how it started, we might be able to prevent, or at least mitigate, the next one.


Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to 2014 and Prime Minister from 1991 to 1994, when he negotiated Sweden’s EU accession. A renowned international diplomat, he served as EU Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Special Envoy to the Balkans, and Co-Chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference. He is Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

The Post-COVID-19 World Will Be Less Global and Less Urban

world bank ease of doing business


The COVID-19 pandemic will reverse the trends of globalization and urbanization, increasing the distance between countries and among people. These changes will make for a safer and more resilient world, but one that is also less prosperous, stable and fulfilling, writes Wharton Dean Geoffrey Garrett in this opinion piece. (This article originally appeared as part of Penn on the World after COVID-19, a joint project of Penn Global and Perry World House.)

For the past four decades, globalization and urbanization have been two of the world’s most powerful drivers. Global trade increased from under 40% of the world’s GDP in 1980 to over 60% today. Over the same period, the number of people living in cities more than doubled to over 4 billion people today — more than half the world’s population.

COVID-19 will reverse both of these trends, increasing the distance both between countries and among people. Some will laud these changes for increasing safety and resilience. But a world that is less global and less urban would also be less prosperous, less stable and less fulfilling.

Here are two core predictions about the world after COVID-19:

Less global, more isolated. Even before COVID-19, the decades-long trend toward ever-more globalization of trade, investment, supply chains and people flows was beginning to grind to a halt. We began to look closer to home in terms of the products we produce and consume, the people with whom we interact, and where we get our energy and our money.

In retrospect, we will come to view the years right before the 2008 financial crisis as “peak globalization.” Since then, the combination of recession, inequality and populism has created a growing anti-globalization and anti-immigration consensus in western countries, exemplified by the U.S. trade war with China.

The reaction of developed economies to the coronavirus will only strengthen this consensus, as all things international will be viewed as incurring unnecessary and dangerous risks. What was a growing “anti-globalization” consensus is poised to crystalize into a “de-globalization” reality.

We are being told this de-globalization will make us all more resilient. But it will also make us less prosperous — with less choice and higher prices. It may also make us less secure, as international cooperation will decrease and the potential for international conflict will increase.

Less density, more distance. Urbanization is likely to be the other major casualty of the coronavirus. Unlike globalization, the trend of ever greater-urbanization was unaffected by the global financial crisis. Even America — the land of all things suburban — joined the global march into cities. People were attracted to cities not only for economic opportunity but also for the urban lifestyle.

After coronavirus, people will be more fearful of crowded trains and buses, cafes and restaurants, theaters and stadiums, supermarkets and offices. Crowded spaces are the lifeblood of cities. But now crowds are seen as major health risks. People who have the ability to exit the city will increasingly be tempted to do so.

People who cannot leave will feel at increased risk, hunker down, and reduce their movements and contacts. It is hard to think about Manhattan without the subway and 10-deep pedestrians on Fifth Avenue. But that may be the increasing post-COVID reality.

De-urbanization would harm economic growth because cities generate enormous scale economies and have proved to be remarkably effective incubators of creativity and innovation.

This could be particularly true in developing economies where the movement of people from rural areas to rapidly expanding cities has been perhaps the key driver of poverty reduction.

But the shrinking of cities will have other adverse effects too, from reducing cultural vibrancy and cosmopolitanism to exacerbating climate change. In addition to being more productive, cities also tend to be more environmentally sustainable.

A world that is less global and less urban would be far less appealing to me, personally. But it is also a world that would hurt economic prosperity, reduce shared understanding among disparate people, and increase the prospect of conflict among them.

Our immediate reactions to COVID-19 will lead us to want both to de-globalize and to de-urbanize. But we must take fully into account the profound longer-term costs of doing so.

Globalization and urbanization generate challenges we must confront, all the more so in a post-coronavirus world. The solution is to manage them, not to reverse them.

S&P 500: Yes, There Will Be More Blood

Victor Dergunov


Summary


• The S&P 500 is currently at an inflection point, as the major average trades in a tight range of 2,775 - 2,950.

• Fed Chair Powell said that the recovery will likely take "some time" and that the recovery process could drag on through 2021.

• Fed "stimulus" may have prevented an all-out meltdown in equity markets but it's not likely to improve consumer confidence/spending, or prevent corporate profits from declining precipitously.

• Coronavirus is not going away any time soon, possibly ever, and the economy is confronted with unprecedented uncertainty.

• There are some bright spots in the market, but the S&P 500 could decline to 2,500 or lower going into what's likely to be an atrocious Q2 earnings season.

• Looking for a portfolio of ideas like this one? Members of Albright Investment Group get exclusive access to our model portfolio. Get started today »


Bear Market


Last week was choppy, with the S&P 500/SPX (SP500) unable to break above the crucial 2,950 resistance level. On the bright side, SPX bounced off critical support at around 2,775 – 2,800. Other bright spots in the market included the gold, silver, mining/GSM sector, Bitcoin and digital assets, as well as oil. This week is going to be vital, as we are going to see whether markets can continue to climb higher, or if further weakness in equity markets can be expected.

What to Expect From the Equity Market

The SPX is at an inflection point as it's trading in a crucial trading range, roughly 2,775 – 2,950. Q1 is in the books, and earnings for the quarter were largely as expected. However, Q2 is likely going to be far worse. A lot of the upcoming bad news for Q2 is largely priced in to markets, but so is much of the Fed and government-backed stimulus. What's not factored into the stock market right now is a far worse than expected Q2, coupled with a slower than anticipated H2 and a slower than expected 2021.


One of the key takeaways from Fed Chair Powell’s 60-minute interview was his quote that “The recovery may take some time; the economy could take through 2021 to recover.” This implies that the Fed Chair is skeptical that there will be any sort of a V-shaped recovery going forward, and this is logical as COVID-19 shocks are likely to be felt throughout the global economy for many months. With various sectors of the economy starting to reopen for business we already are seeing upticks in COVID-19 infections in various states.


Fed Chair Powell
Fed Chair PowellImage Source - Yes, a sustained recession is starting to look more and more likely…


The Novel-coronavirus/COVID-19 is here to stay, and future “waves” are very likely going to disturb economic activity, surpass consumer spending/confidence, and weigh on corporate profits going forward.

This fall’s flu and cold season is likely going to be especially difficult as the addition of the Wuhan virus to this equation could cause another wave of pandemonium around the globe.

Additionally, we may not see a viable vaccine for some time, and effective treatments for the virus remain in question. There is news of a possible vaccine breakthrough from Moderna (NASDAQ:MRNA) this morning, but it's still extremely early to say whether this will ultimately be a hit or miss on the vaccine front.

To complicate matters further, there's now debate on whether an effective vaccine is even possible for the continuously mutating virus. This creates a great deal of uncertainty, and in these extraordinarily uncertain times markets are likely to remain volatile and could experience another substantial leg lower during the summer.

The S&P 500 Breakdown

On factor to keep in mind is that no one truly knows how awful Q2 earnings will be, but I'm convinced they are going to be atrocious. For many, possibly for most firms, Q2 results may be far worse than is currently suggested by consensus estimates. Therefore, we are likely going to see another major leg down in the markets. The downturn can begin at any time throughout Q2, and will likely bottom going into Q2 earnings season. The bottom line is that for most companies, revenues and earnings will likely decline substantially. Furthermore, it's unknown when a sustainable recovery will occur, and what revenues and earnings will look like in the “new normal.”


S&P 500
S&P 500Image Source


We can see that the SPX has failed twice at the 2,950 level. The chart also is starting to look increasingly bearish. We have what appears to be a double top around the 2,950 level inside a developing head and shoulders pattern.

The first key level from here is 2,900. The SPX needs to trade and close decisively above 2,900 to keep technical momentum from deteriorating notably. If the SPX can make a sustainable move above 2,900 in future sessions, it then needs to retest and breakout above 2,950. This would be an ideal scenario, but given the fundamental and technical factors at hand it seems likelier that the SPX will attempt to move higher but will likely fail around these crucial resistance points.

Therefore, the next move could be lower, and it could be notably lower from here. I'm watching the neckline at around 2,775, and if this level gets breached we may see SPX move down precipitously to around the 2,650 point. This is the next level of support, and if it breaks, SPX could be headed back down to around 2,500 or lower. It’s too early to discuss lower levels, but we will cross that river once we get there.

Why the recent rebound?

We had a strong rebound on Thursday, with a slight follow-through on Friday, and now we see futures trading higher today (Monday morning). We hit a critical technical level (2,775) on Thursday, and it drew in a lot of buy interest, thus a lot of people got drawn into this market. This may very well be a “sucker rally,” therefore, if the market begins to show signs of weakness during today’s session it's likely a good idea to take profits around the highs and exit certain positions. By certain positions I'm referring to most cyclical names, and most stocks in general outside of the GSM and possibly the biotech/pharma sectors.

The Bright Spots in the Market

Gold
GoldImage Source


The main bright spot remains the GSM sector. Gold is approaching all-time highs and silver is up by 4.26% at the time of writing this article. This is on top of an explosive 5.66% move higher on Friday in silver.

What can I say, silver is on fire, the gold to silver ratio has declined from a historic high of 125 to around 100, and silver is likely to continue with its outperformance going forward.



Silver

Silver


Gold


Gold

Gold Miners/GDX

Gold Miners


Another bright spot in the market continue to be Bitcoin and digital assets. Bitcoin has appreciated significantly since bottoming at around $6,500 about one month ago.

In fact, the digital asset has surged by around 50%, and is on the verge of breaking out above the critical $10,000 resistance point.

Bitcoin is not alone, as other key digital assets also are on the move higher with many making significant moves off their recent lows.






Why GSMs and Digital Assets are Outperforming

Another key point that jumped out at me during the Fed Chair’s interview was his assertion that the Fed was not out of ammunition “not by a long shot.” When Jerome Powell was asked what kind of ammunition the Fed had left, the Fed Chair mostly spoke about printing more money, Jerome Powell said that the Fed “prints money digitally, and that the agency also prints money physically.” In other words, the Fed seems ready to expand the monetary base indefinitely. There's also the option of negative rates but it does not appear that the Fed is quite ready to implement this policy right now.

However, all this boils down to an enormous amount of new currency in the market, digital or physical, it doesn’t matter. The price of gold has an extremely close correlation with monetary base expansion, and silver typically goes in the direction of gold.

Gold and silver miners make more revenues and earn higher profits as prices of gold and silver go up. Bitcoin and other systemically important minable digital assets are essentially inflation proof as there is a set number of coins (21 million for BTC, etc.) that can ever exist in circulation.

In addition, as fiat currencies continue to debase around the globe, gold and digital currencies become more attractive due to various factors, demand increases, and prices go up.

The Bottom Line

Despite an impressive gain of roughly 32% form the May low, the SPX and stocks in general are confronted with enormous uncertainty going forward. The Fed’s “stimulus” prevented an all-out meltdown, but the agency may not be equipped to continuously prop up consumer spending, prevent corporate profits from declining notably, and enable the economy to return to business usual any time soon.

Therefore, stocks are not immune from further losses, and a significant leg lower to around SPX 2,500 seems like a plausible scenario this summer.

Also, there is the enormous debt burden to address. With the national debt at well over $25 trillion, the actual federal budget deficit at around $3.25 trillion, national debt to GDP at 118.5%, and total debt to GDP at 134% a return to a “normalized” higher rate environment is not likely. In fact, the debt picture is likely to only get worse from here.

Thus, we can expect lower than average economic growth in the future, even after the CV situation gets resolved. On the bright side, the ever-expanding monetary base and perpetual fiat currency debasement should continue to serve as a catalyst for higher GSM and digital asset prices going forward.