Developed Countries

In this Monday’s Weekly Report we build on our four-factor S&P 500 EPS model by plugging in our base, worse, and best case estimates of the four variables and got as output the model’s EPS growth estimate for the calendar 2020.  We then assigned probabilities to those three outcomes resulting in an EPS forecast of $169/share. Next, we introduced our base, worse and best case forward P/Es (with an equal probability of occurrence) and multiplied them with our $169/share weighted EPS forecast in order to arrive at the SPX 3,049 expected value for end-2020. The Chart on the right depicts results of our analysis, which also suggests that the SPX is currently 8% overvalued. Bottom Line: We remain cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. For a more detailed discussion of our EPS analysis please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report.  

Highlights 2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -38bps for all of 2019. Winners & Losers: The underperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2019 was concentrated in the government bond side of the portfolio (-103bps), a result of below-benchmark duration positioning and underweights to US Treasuries and Italian government bonds. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations (+65bps), mostly driven by an overweight to US high-yield corporate bonds. Q4/2019 Performance: The year ended strongly, however, as the portfolio outperformed by +28bps in Q4, split equally between government bonds and spread product. Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: We are targeting a moderately aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration exposure alongside meaningful overweight allocations to global corporate credit. In our base case scenario, global growth will continue to recover supported by accommodative monetary policies, thus opening a window for another year of global corporates outperforming sovereign bonds in 2020. Feature Last week, we published the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio strategy for the coming year, in which we translated our 2020 global fixed income Key Views into recommended investment positioning for the next 6-12 months.1 In this week’s report, take a final look back to review the performance of the model portfolio for both the fourth quarter of 2019 and the entire calendar year. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months, incorporating the new recommended allocations introduced last week. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. 2019 Performance: A Short Summary Of A Long Year Chart of the Week2019 Performance: Credit Good, Duration Bad, But A Solid Q4 The 2019 performance of the model portfolio can be summarized by duration dominating credit. Government bond yields rapidly fell in the first three quarters of the year due to weakening global growth and growing political uncertainty, to the detriment of our below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration. At the same time, global credit markets performed strongly in 2019, even as risk-free government bond yields plunged, which benefited our overweight stance on global spread product. The 2019 performance of the model portfolio can be summarized by duration dominating credit.  All in all, the overall portfolio return in 2019 was +7.9% (hedged into USD), underperforming our custom benchmark index by -38bps (Chart of the Week).2 That underperformance was more pronounced before the strong rebound in global bond yields witnessed at the beginning of the fourth quarter, at which point the portfolio was underperforming the custom benchmark by -68bps (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Overall Return Attribution Looking at the breakdown of underperformance in 2019, our recommended positioning on government bonds (duration and country allocation) dragged the overall performance by -104bps, while our credit tilts (by country and broadly defined credit sectors) provided a partial offset, contributing +65bps. The details of the full year 2019 performance can be found in the Appendix on pages 14-16. In terms of specifics, the biggest sources of underperformance were underweights in US Treasuries (-66bps) and Italian government bonds (-28bps). Those positions, however, were used to “fund” corporate bond overweights in US investment grade (+28bps) and US high-yield (+46bps), as well as euro area corporate debt (+6bps) – allocations that performed well and helped offset the underperformance in US and Italian sovereign debt. More generally across the government bond portion of the portfolio, the drag on returns was concentrated in the 10+ year maturity buckets. This was a consequence of combining our below-benchmark duration stance with a curve-steepening bias that was hurt severely by the bullish flattening of global yield curves in the first three quarters of the year. The drag on returns from curve positioning was particularly acute in Japan and France, where the 10+ year maturity buckets underperformed by -27bps and -13bps, respectively. On a more positive note with regards to country selection, three of our favorite overweights for 2020 – Germany (+10bps), Australia (+7bps) and the UK (+5bps) – all outperformed versus the model portfolio benchmark. Q4/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Winning On Both Sides The GFIS model bond portfolio performed well at the end of 2019, as fixed income markets began to discount stabilizing global growth and reduced central bank easing expectations. The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in Q4/2019 was only +0.1%, but this managed to outperform the custom benchmark index by a solid +28bps. The GFIS model bond portfolio performed well at the end of 2019, as fixed income markets began to discount stabilizing global growth and reduced central bank easing expectations.  In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +14bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +15bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector The most significant movers were: Biggest outperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+8bps) Overweight US Ba-rated high-yield corporates (+5bps) Overweight US B-rated high-yield corporates (+5bps) Underweight Italian government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+4bps) Underweight German government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+3bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 1-3 years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-1bp) Overweight UK government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-1bp) Underweight German government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-1bp) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q4/2019. The returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q4/2019 (red for underweight, green for overweight, gray for neutral).3 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Bond Portfolio In Q4/2019 Global spread product dominates the left half of the chart. EM corporates and EM sovereigns denominated in US dollars turned to be the best performers in Q4, followed by US and European corporate bonds. This was a boon for our model portfolio performance, given our overweight stances on global corporate bonds. This was due to credit spread narrowing, supported by accommodative monetary policy and fading fears of slower global growth. On the other hand, the right side of Chart 4 is predominantly occupied by government bonds. The worst performers in Q4 were German, New Zealand and UK governments bonds – three markets where we have been overweight, although we did take profits on our long-held bullish view on New Zealand in mid-November.4 Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index during the fourth quarter of the year. The outperformance came both from the government and spread product sides of the portfolio, driven by a smaller exposure to the long-ends of government bond yield curves and our recommended overweight position on US high-yield corporate bonds. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Significantly Overweight Credit Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias, our overweight stance on corporate debt versus global government bonds, and last week’s upgrade of EM USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates to overweight. In terms of specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we now have a more pronounced bias favoring global spread product over government debt, with a relative overweight of fifteen percentage points versus the benchmark index (Chart 5). We also remain modestly below-benchmark on duration, with an overall exposure equal to 0.5 years short of the benchmark (Chart 6). While we do not expect a major surge in bond yields this year, global yield curves discount inflation expectations that are too low and monetary policy easing in 2020 that is unlikely to be delivered (especially in the US). With global growth showing signs of bottoming out, and leading indicators pointing to continued improvement in the next 6-12 months, the risk/reward bias is tilted in favor of global yields moving higher, justifying reduced duration exposure. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias, our overweight stance on corporate debt versus global government bonds, and last week’s upgrade of EM USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates to overweight. Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Moderately Below Benchmark Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Significant Positive Carry From Credit Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Moderately Aggressive To better position the model bond portfolio to this backdrop of slowly rising global yields, we adjusted our government bond country allocations last week in favor of lower-beta markets such as Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Australia and the UK, while maintaining underweight positions in higher-beta markets such as the US, Canada and Italy.5 Our decision to upgrade global credit exposure helps boost the yield of our model portfolio to around 3%, or +43bps in excess of the benchmark index yield (Chart 7). Further, these changes represent an increase in the usage of the “risk budget” of our model bond portfolio, which is now running a tracking error (or excess volatility versus that of the benchmark) of 73bps (Chart 8). This is slightly higher than the 58bps prior to last week’s changes, but is still below the maximum allowable tracking error of 100bps that we have imposed on the model portfolio since its inception. More importantly, this is consistent with our view that investors should maintain a “moderately aggressive” level of risk in fixed income portfolios in 2020. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts To help provide some insight as to the potential excess returns from our model bond portfolio tilts, we use a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors. For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the US dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-US yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in US Treasury yields (Table 2B). We take yield forecasts for US Treasuries that are translated to shifts in non-US yields using these yield betas.6 Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries In Tables 3A and 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, all revolve around our expectation that the most important drivers of future market returns will continue to be the momentum of global growth and the path of US monetary policy. Base Case (Global Growth Recovery): The Fed stays on hold, the US dollar weakens by -2%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX hovers around 13, and there is a bear-steepening of the UST curve. This is a scenario where global growth keeps recovering, alongside a US dollar which slightly weakens. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +90bps in this case. Global Growth Accelerates: The Fed stays on hold, the US dollar weakens by -5%, oil prices rise by +15%, the VIX declines to 10, and there is a more pronounced bear-steepening of the UST curve. Under this scenario, the pickup in global growth is faster than anticipated, causing the US dollar to weaken substantially as global capital flows move into more growth-sensitive markets outside the US. Both of these forces support EM economies and support oil prices. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +125bps in this case. Global Growth Upturn Fails: The Fed cuts rates by -25bps, the US dollar appreciates by +3%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX rises to 25; there is a parallel shift down in the UST curve. This is a scenario where global growth merely stabilizes at weak levels but fails to rebound. The Fed finds itself delivering one more rate cut in order to support the US economy. Meantime, the US dollar appreciates as capital flows out of growth-sensitive regions into the safe-haven greenback, particularly as global recession fears result in increased financial market volatility. The model portfolio will underperform the benchmark by -38bps in this scenario. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the US dollar and the VIX index) are shown visually in Chart 9, while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 10. Chart 9Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 10US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are confident that global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the course of 2020. This will allow our increased spread product allocation to be the main driver of the portfolio returns. Thus, the overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and “Global Growth Accelerates” outcomes. We are confident that global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the course of 2020. This will allow our increased spread product allocation to be the main driver of the portfolio returns. Bottom Line: We are targeting a moderately aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration exposure alongside meaningful overweight allocations to global corporate credit. In our base case scenario, global growth will continue to recover supported by accommodative global monetary policy, thus opening a window for another year of global corporates outperforming sovereign bonds in 2020.   Jeremie Peloso Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy For 2020: Selectively Aggressive”, dated January 7, 2020, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q4/2019 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “When In Doubt, Trust The Leading Indicators”, dated November 19, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 We are defining “beta” here in terms of yield beta, or the sensitivity to changes in an individual country's bond yield to changes the overall level of global bond yields. 6 We are making a change in the betas used in our scenario analysis this week, using trailing 3-year yield betas to US Treasuries in place of the longer-term post-crisis yield betas that were measured over a full 10 years. Appendix Appendix Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Overall Return Attribution Appendix Chart 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Appendix Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector   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 Duration: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. TIPS: We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. High-Yield: Investors should add (or increase) exposure to the high-yield energy sector, within an overweight allocation to junk bonds. Junk energy spreads are attractive, and exposure to the sector will mitigate the impact of a potential oil supply shock. Feature Only a month ago, investors were becoming more optimistic about a global growth rebound and the US/China phase 1 trade deal was pushing political risk into the background. Both of those factors caused the 10-year Treasury yield to rise throughout December, hitting an intra-day Christmas Eve peak of 1.95% (Chart 1). But since then, softer global PMI data and the US/Iranian military conflict brought global growth concerns and political risk back to the fore, breaking the uptrend in yields. Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause Global growth and political uncertainty are two of the five macro factors that we identify as important for US bond yields.1 And despite the recent setback, we think both factors will push yields higher in the coming months. Global Growth We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index are the three global growth indicators that correlate most strongly with US bond yields. One reason for the recent pullback in yields is the disappointing December data from the Global and US Manufacturing PMIs. The ISM Manufacturing PMI moved deeper into recessionary territory. The Global Manufacturing PMI had been in a clear uptrend since mid-2019, but fell back to 50.1 in December, from 50.3 the month before (Chart 2). The US and Chinese PMIs also declined in December, though they remain well above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panels 3 & 4). The Eurozone and Japanese PMIs, meanwhile, are still in the doldrums (Chart 2, panels 2 & 5). More worrying than the small tick down in Global PMI is the US ISM Manufacturing PMI moving deeper into recessionary territory, from 48.1 to 47.2. However, we have good reason to think that stronger data are just around the corner (Chart 3). Chart 2Global PMI Ticks Down Chart 3ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound First, the difference between the new orders and inventories components of the ISM index often leads the overall index at turning points, 2016 being a prime example (Chart 3, top panel). Much like in 2016, a gap is opening up between new orders-less-inventories and the overall ISM. Second, the non-manufacturing ISM index remains strong despite the weakness in manufacturing (Chart 3, panel 2). With no contagion to the service sector of the economy, we’d expect manufacturing to pick back up. Third, the ISM Manufacturing index has diverged sharply from the Markit Manufacturing PMI, with the Markit index printing well above the ISM (Chart 3, panel 3).2 The ISM index has been more volatile than the Markit index in recent years, and should trend toward the Markit index over time. Fourth, regional Fed manufacturing surveys have generally been stronger than the ISM during the past few months. A simple regression model of the ISM index based on data from regional Fed surveys suggests that the ISM index should be at 49.7 today, instead of 47.2 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Finally, unlike the PMI surveys, the CRB Raw Industrials index has increased quite sharply in recent weeks (Chart 4). We should note that it is not the CRB index itself but rather the ratio between the CRB index and gold that tracks bond yields most closely, and this ratio has actually declined lately due to the strength in gold. Nonetheless, a sustained turnaround in the CRB index would mark a big change from 2019 and would send a strong bond-bearish signal. Chart 4CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal Political Uncertainty The second factor that sent bond yields lower during the past few weeks was the military conflict between the US and Iran. Tensions appear to have de-escalated for now, and we would expect any flight-to-quality flows to unwind during the next few weeks.3 But while we see policy uncertainty easing in the near-term, sending bond yields higher, we reiterate our view that US political uncertainty is the number one risk factor that could derail the 2020 bear market in bonds.4 Specifically, we see two looming US political risks. The first relates to President Trump’s re-election odds. For now, Trump’s approval rating is in line with past incumbent presidents that have won re-election (Chart 5). But if his approval doesn’t keep pace in the coming months, he will try to do something to change his fortunes. That could mean re-igniting the trade war with China, or once again ramping up tensions with Iran. A Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren victory would send a flight-to-quality into bonds. The second risk is that one of the progressive candidates – Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren – secures the Democratic nomination for president. Right now, both trail Joe Biden in the polls and betting markets (Chart 6), but things could change rapidly as the primary results come in during the next few months. The stock market would certainly sell off if an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidency seems likely, sending a flight to quality into bonds.5 Chart 5Trump’s Approval Rating Must Rise Chart 6Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Bottom Line: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. Playing An Oil Supply Shock In US Bond Markets US/Iranian military tensions are easing for now, but could flare again in the future. For that reason, it’s worth considering how US bond markets would respond in the event of a conflict between the US and Iran that removed a significant amount of the world’s oil supply from the market, causing the oil price to spike. The first implication is that US bond yields would fall. Even though it’s tempting to say that the inflationary impact of higher oil prices would push yields up, this effect would not dominate the flight-to-quality into US bonds that would result from the increase in political uncertainty. Case in point, Chart 1 shows that, while the inflation component of yields was stable as tensions flared during the past few weeks, it didn’t come close to offsetting the drop in the 10-year real yield. Beyond the impact on Treasury yields, there are two other segments of the US bond market that would be materially impacted by an oil supply shock: the TIPS breakeven inflation curve and corporate bond spreads. Buy TIPS Breakeven Curve Flatteners Table 1CPI Swap Curve Sensitivity To Oil When considering the impact of an oil supply shock on TIPS breakeven inflation rates, we first look at how the cost of inflation protection is influenced by changes in the oil price. Table 1 shows the sensitivity of weekly changes in different CPI swap rates to a $1 increase in the price of Brent crude oil. We use CPI swap rates instead of TIPS breakeven inflation rates because data are available for a wider maturity spectrum. Our analysis applies equally to the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. Two conclusions are apparent from Table 1. First, the entire CPI swap curve is positively correlated with the oil price, a higher oil price moves CPI swap rates higher and vice-versa. Second, the sensitivity of CPI swap rates to the oil price is greater at the short-end of the curve than at the long-end. This is fairly intuitive given that higher oil prices are inflationary in the short-term but could be deflationary in the long-run if they hamper economic growth. Chart 7Coefficients Stable Over Time Chart 7 shows that our two main conclusions are not dependent on the chosen time horizon. The 2-year CPI swap rate is positively correlated with the oil price for our entire sample period, as is the 10-year rate except for a brief window in 2014. The 2-year rate’s sensitivity is also consistently higher than the 10-year’s. Based on this analysis, we can suggest two good ways to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock that sends prices higher: Buy inflation protection, either in the CPI swaps market or by going long TIPS versus duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries. Buy CPI swap curve (or TIPS breakeven inflation curve) flatteners.6 But we can introduce one more wrinkle to our analysis. Oil prices can rise because of stronger demand or because a shock suddenly removes supply from the market. It’s possible that the cost of inflation protection behaves differently in each case. Fortunately, the New York Fed has made an attempt to distinguish between those two scenarios. In its weekly Oil Price Dynamics Report, the Fed decomposes Brent oil price changes into demand-driven changes and supply-driven changes.7 It does this by looking at how other financial assets respond to oil price changes each week. Chart 8 shows the cumulative change in the Brent oil price since 2010, along with the New York Fed’s supply and demand factors. According to the Fed, demand has pressured the oil price higher since 2010, but this has been more than offset by greater supply. Chart 8Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Using the New York Fed’s supply and demand series, we look at how CPI swap rates respond to higher oil prices in three different scenarios. First, we identify 252 weeks when demand and supply both contributed to higher oil prices. Second, we identify 95 weeks when higher oil prices were driven solely by demand. Finally, and most pertinently, we identify 92 weeks when higher oil prices were driven only by supply (Table 2). Table 2Weekly Change In CPI Swap Rate When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios are consistent with our results from Table 1. CPI swap rates across the entire curve move higher more than half the time, with greater increases at the short-end of the curve. However, the scenario we are most interested in is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario. Presumably, a military conflict with Iran that took oil supply off the market would lead to less supply and also a decrease in global demand. Results for this scenario are more mixed. The 1-year CPI swap rate still rises 60% of the time, but rates further out the curve are somewhat more likely to fall. With this in mind, CPI swap curve or TIPS breakeven curve flatteners look like the best way to hedge against an oil supply shock, better than an outright long position in inflation protection. This is good news, since we have previously argued that owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners is a good idea even without an oil supply shock.8 Corporate bond excess returns respond positively to changes in the oil price. We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. Buy Energy Junk Bonds Table 3Corporate Bond Sensitivity To Oil Corporate bonds are the second segment of the US fixed income market that could be materially impacted by an oil supply shock, particularly bonds in the energy sector. To assess the potential value of corporate bonds as a hedge, we repeat the above analysis but use weekly corporate bond excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries instead of CPI swap rates. Table 3 shows that investment grade and high-yield corporate bond returns both respond positively to changes in the oil price. Further, we see that energy bonds are more sensitive to the oil price, outperforming the overall index when the oil price rises, and vice-versa. Chart 9 shows that, while oil price sensitivities vary considerably over time, they are almost always positive. Also, energy sector sensitivity has been consistently above that of the benchmark index since 2014. Chart 9Betas Mostly Positive Going one step further, we once again use the New York Fed’s supply and demand decomposition to identify weeks when supply and/or demand was responsible for higher oil prices. Because we have more historical data for corporate bonds than for CPI swaps, this time we identify 340 weeks when both supply and demand drove the oil price higher, 123 weeks when only demand drove it higher and 142 weeks when only supply was responsible for the higher oil price (Table 4). Table 4Weekly Corporate Bond Excess Returns (BPs) When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios show that higher oil prices boost excess returns to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds more than half the time. Energy bonds also tend to outperform their respective benchmark indexes in the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ scenario, but perform roughly in-line with the benchmark in the ‘Demand Driven’ scenario. But once again, it is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario that we are most interested in. Here, we see that an oil supply disruption that leads to higher oil prices also leads to lower corporate bond excess returns. This is true for both the investment grade and high-yield indexes and for energy bonds in both rating categories. However, we also note that high-yield energy debt significantly outperforms the overall junk index during these “risk off” periods. In contrast, investment grade energy debt is not a clear outperformer. Chart 10HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive These results line up with our intuition. When oil prices are driven higher by demand it could simply be a sign of strong economic growth and not any specific trend related to the energy sector. As such, we’d expect all corporate bonds to perform well in those scenarios, but wouldn’t necessarily expect energy debt to outperform. However, supply disruptions in the Middle East directly benefit US shale oil players, whose debt is principally found in the high-yield energy sector. The investment grade energy sector is less exposed to the US shale space, and its documented outperformance in the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario is weaker as a result. We already recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. Within that overweight allocation to high-yield bonds, we recommend shifting some exposure toward the energy sector for two reasons. First, high-yield energy was severely beaten-down last year and is ripe for a rebound if global economic growth recovers, as we expect (Chart 10). Second, our analysis suggests that an allocation to energy will help mitigate losses in the event of a renewed flaring of US/Iranian tensions that removes oil supply from the market. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors initiate TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (or CPI swap curve flatteners) and add exposure to the high-yield energy sector. Both positions look attractive on their own terms, but will also help hedge the risk of an oil supply disruption if US/Iranian tensions flare back up in the months ahead.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The others are: the output gap, the US dollar and sentiment. For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Markit index is used in the construction of the Global PMI shown in Chart 2, 3 For more details on the politics behind the US/Iran conflict please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions”, dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren And The Markets”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 In the TIPS market, an example of a breakeven curve flattener would be to buy 2-year TIPS and short the 2-year nominal Treasury note, while also buying the 10-year nominal Treasury note and shorting the 10-year TIPS. 7 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/oil_price_dynamics_report 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification