Is determining the shape of the global economic recovery much ado about nothing?

Deciding whether the recovery is V, U, W or any other shape may depend on where you look and may not matter much for the markets

Is the nascent economic recovery V-shaped, U-shaped, L-shaped, W-shaped, square root-shaped, Nike swoosh-shaped or something else entirely? I haven’t seen this much debate over what we perceive since we disputed whether the dress was blue and black or white and gold. For what it’s worth, I insist that the dress is blue and gold and the auditory illusion says “Yanny,” not “Laurel,” but I digress. 

The reality is that where you stand on the topic depends, as with most other things, on where you sit. If you’re in the V-shaped recovery camp, then there are data to confirm your bias. For example, survey data in the manufacturing and/or service sectors in China and the New York tri-state area, two places where the COVID-19 caseload has been largely compressed, have staged, well, V-shaped recoveries.1 Even US retail sales appear to be quickly retracing to prior levels, the tens of millions unemployed notwithstanding.2 The S&P 500 Index and Nasdaq Composite Index have, to date, followed a similar pattern.3

Lest the V-shaped folks take a victory lap, there are data sets to bolster the supporters of economic recoveries of all shapes and sizes. For example, the recovery in air travel and restaurant seating is U-shaped; in continuing jobless claims, it’s backward square root-shaped.4 US Treasury rates, for their part, suggest that the recovery may be L-shaped.5 The recent rise in COVID-19 cases6 has some predicting another round of draconian shutdowns and a subsequent W-shaped recovery.

Perhaps everyone is overthinking this. Consider that the economic recoveries from the recessions beginning in 1981, 2001, and 2007 each had very distinct shapes, ranging from V-shaped (2001), to W-shaped (1981), to U-shaped (2007).7 The broad markets posted sound peak-to-trough annualized returns in all three scenarios. Paradoxically, markets ultimately performed best in the U-shaped scenario and worst in the V-shaped scenario.8 Admittedly, three examples may not amount to sound statistical analysis. However, it is intuitive that weak recoveries with persistently low inflation and unending policy accommodations would be generally better for financial markets than sharp recoveries and tighter monetary policy. For the record, I believe we will continue to see slow growth and have an extended zero-interest-rate environment, and I expect that could set the stage for another long market cycle.

So, let’s stop obsessing over whether it’s a V-shaped recovery. As with the blue and black/white and gold dress, it all depends on the context in which you are observing. The reality is that modern history suggests the markets are not as concerned nearly as much as everyone else seems to be.  


1 Sources: China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing, May 31, 2020, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, June 2020

2 Source: US Census Bureau, May 31, 2020

3 Source: Bloomberg, June 22, 2020. The NASDAQ Composite Index is a broad-based capitalization-weighted index of stocks in all three NASDAQ tiers: Global Select, Global Market and Capital Market. Indexes are unmanaged and cannot be purchased directly by investors.

4  Sources: Transportation Security Administration and, June 22, 2020. US Department of Labor, June 6, 2020

5  Source: Bloomberg, June 22, 2020

6  Sources: Bloomberg, Johns Hopkins, June 23, 2020

7  Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Invesco, March 31, 2020

8  Sources: Bloomberg, Standard & Poor’s, Invesco, June 23, 2020

In general, stock values fluctuate, sometimes widely, in response to activities specific to the company as well as general market, economic and political conditions.

Treasury securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government as to the timely payment of principal and interest.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Important Information

Blog header image: Komal Brar / Unsplash

The opinions referenced above are those of the authors as of June 26, 2020. These comments should not be construed as recommendations, but as an illustration of broader themes. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future results. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions; there can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from expectations.

Brian Levitt is the Global Market Strategist, focusing on North America, for Invesco. He is responsible for the development and communication of the firm’s investment outlooks and insights.

Mr. Levitt has two decades of investment experience in the asset management industry. In April 2000, he joined OppenheimerFunds, starting in fixed income product management and then transitioning into the macro and investment strategy group in 2005. Mr. Levitt co-hosted the OppenheimerFunds World Financial Podcast, which explored global long-term investing trends. He joined Invesco when the firm combined with Oppenheimer Funds in 2019.

Mr. Levitt earned a BA degree in economics from the University of Michigan and an MBA with honors in finance and international business from Fordham University. He is frequently quoted in the press, including Barron’s, Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal. He appears regularly on CNBC, Bloomberg and PBS’s Nightly Business Report.

More in Market & Economic
Economic data shows improvement, but infection rates prove difficult to control

Two weeks ago, I wrote about some burgeoning “green shoots” that offered early, encouraging signs of economic recovery around the world. I’m pleased to see...