The relentless rise in the number of new US Covid-19 infections, which is being followed by increased hospitalisation rates and fatalities in the worst affected states, suggests that Anthony Fauci of the White House coronavirus task force was justified when he recently described the deteriorating situation as a “perfect storm”.
So far, the US policy response has been muted, certainly compared to nationwide lockdowns in other countries in March. And markets remain surprisingly relaxed, reportedly because investors are optimistic that an effective vaccine from the Oxford University or Moderna trials may be “within sight”. Those trials are highly encouraging. But even the most favourable outcome in vaccine development would come too late to save the US economy from the spread of the virus over the next three months.
Unless public policy can control the rate of infections across the American sunbelt, there could be adverse consequences for any US economic recovery over the rest of this year. Consensus economic forecasts have not yet given much weight to this increasing risk, although the US Federal Reserve is increasingly worried.
Fulcrum economists have developed a new model which tracks the epidemic on a state-by-state basis, based on the now-familiar SIRD model used by the Imperial College Covid-19 response team and other researchers.
It suggests that the virus’s effective reproduction number, known as R, is now above the critical level of 1 in all but five of the US’s 50 states. Weighted by gross domestic product, this means that 95 per cent of the US economy is affected by a viral reproduction rate high enough to cause an exponential rise in the number of cases — unless something intervenes to prevent this. Other researchers have found similar results.
This spread of R levels above 1 is the broadest it has been since the epidemic started. In March, absolute levels of R were higher in the north east, when the reproduction rate exceeded 3 for several weeks and infection numbers doubled every few days.
In the current wave, the generally lower levels of R have slowed down the spread of the disease. Furthermore, the age distribution of the infected group is younger, and the case fatality rate within intensive care units has fallen as treatment has improved.
As a result, there has been political resistance to full lockdowns in the most severely affected states. Unfortunately, international experience suggests that delayed lockdowns result in worse outcomes for cases and fatalities, at least in the short term.
The key economic question now is how much damage to activity will be incurred as policy lockdowns and voluntary social distancing bring the epidemic under control. So far, the answer is very little.
According to Harvard University economist Raj Chetty’s website, which tracks the recovery and is based on big data, US consumer expenditure has flattened since late June but not fallen substantially — even in the most affected states. Trackers based on Google searches and other big data paint a similar picture.
Most forecasters therefore assume that there will be nothing worse than a brief period of stable activity. This would result in strongly positive growth between the second and third quarters. For example, Goldman Sachs believes the virus may be controlled by measures focused on ending indoor gatherings and promoting the wearing of face masks. Both of these have been effective in some states.
Such measures would fall short of full stay-at-home lockdowns, permitting the economy to resume recovery. Arizona is one example of a state that has made encouraging progress. However, the downside risks are obvious.
Fulcrum economists have modelled an alternative scenario where full lockdowns are eventually needed in states where the R is currently above 1.5, with partial lockdowns in states where R lies between 1.25 and 1.5, and no lockdowns elsewhere.
This would lead to a large drop in activity — in effect, a double dip — of about 7 percentage points through the whole economy while the lockdowns last. If the situation persisted for three months, it would knock almost 2 percentage points from this year’s growth rate, compared to the latest consensus forecasts.
This double dip may not be the most likely outcome, right now. But is a highly plausible worst-case scenario if the national spread of the virus is not brought under control soon.
Source: This note is based on material which appeared in an article by Gavyn Davies published in the Financial Times on 19 July 2020.
This material is for your information only and is not intended to be used by anyone other than you. It is directed at professional clients and eligible counterparties only and is not intended for retail clients. The information contained herein should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial products, including an interest in a fund, or an official confirmation of any transaction. Any such offer or solicitation will be made to qualified investors only by means of an offering memorandum and related subscription agreement. The material is intended only to facilitate your discussions with Fulcrum Asset Management as to the opportunities available to our clients. The given material is subject to change and, although based upon information which we consider reliable, it is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness and it should not be relied upon as such. The material is not intended to be used as a general guide to investing, or as a source of any specific investment recommendations, and makes no implied or express recommendations concerning the manner in which any client’s account should or would be handled, as appropriate investment strategies depend upon client’s investment objectives. Funds managed by Fulcrum Asset Management LLP are in general managed using quantitative models though, where this is the case, Fulcrum Asset Management LLP can and do make discretionary decisions on a frequent basis and reserves the right to do so at any point. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. Future returns are not guaranteed and a loss of principal may occur. Fulcrum Asset Management LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority of the United Kingdom (No: 230683) and incorporated as a Limited Liability Partnership in England and Wales (No: OC306401) with its registered office at Marble Arch House, 66 Seymour Street, London, W1H 5BT. Fulcrum Asset Management LP is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fulcrum Asset Management LLP incorporated in the State of Delaware, operating from 350 Park Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022.
©2020 Fulcrum Asset Management LLP. All rights reserved
For materials in relation to AIFs: This material is being issued in the United Kingdom by the AIFM and/or is directed only at persons who are professional investors for the purposes of the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013 and is accordingly exempt from the financial promotion restriction in Section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”) in accordance with regulation 29(3) of the FSMA (Financial Promotions) Order 2005. The opportunity to invest in the Fund is only available to such persons in the United Kingdom and this material must not be relied or acted upon by any other persons in the United Kingdom. For materials in relation to UCITS: This material is being issued in the United Kingdom by EEA UCITS Investment Manager, and/or is directed at, persons to or at whom it may lawfully be issued or directed under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005 including persons who are authorised under FSMA (“authorised persons”), certain persons having professional experience in matters relating to investments, high net worth companies, high net worth unincorporated associations or partnerships, trustees of high value trusts and persons who qualify as certified sophisticated investors. The interests are only available to such persons in the United Kingdom and this material must not be relied or acted upon by any other persons in the United Kingdom.