Economy

Executive Summary Biden’s Low Approval On Foreign Policy   The energy shock stemming from President Biden’s foreign policy challenges could get worse, especially if US-Iran talks fail. The energy and inflation shocks condemn the Democrats to a dismal midterm election showing, even if Biden handles the Ukraine crisis reasonably well and his approval rating stabilizes. Biden’s foreign policy is still somewhat defensive, focusing on refurbishing US alliances, and as such should not force the EU to boycott Russian energy outright. Biden’s foreign policy doctrine will likely be set in stone with his imminent decision on whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. We doubt it will happen but if it does the market impact will be fleeting due to lack of implementation. Biden’s foreign policy toward China will likely grow more aggressive over time. Recommendation (Cyclical) Inception Level Initiation Date Return Long ISE Cyber-Security Index  647.53  Dec 8, 2021 -4.6% Bottom Line: President Biden foreign policy challenges are creating persistent downside risks for equity markets. Feature External risk is one of our key views for US politics in 2022. This risk includes but is not limited to the war in Ukraine. The Biden administration’s urgent foreign policy challenges are creating persistent downside risks for the global economy and financial markets in the short run – embodied in rising energy costs (Chart 1). Related Report  US Political Strategy2022 Key Views: Gridlock Begins Before The Midterms Chart 1Oil Prices And Prices At The Pump Ukraine Can Still Hurt US Stocks The Ukraine war is not on the verge of resolution – more bad news is likely to hit US equity markets. The Russian military is bombarding the port city of Mauripol, which will fall in the coming days or weeks (Map 1). Given that Mauripol is refusing to surrender, it is highly unlikely that the central government in Kiev will surrender anytime soon. Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine 2022 The military situation is approaching stalemate and yet ceasefire talks are not promising. The Ukrainians do not accept Russian control of Donbas and Crimea and will need to hold a referendum on the terms of any peace agreement. Lack of progress will drive the Russians to escalate the conflict, whether by means of bombardment, troop reinforcements, or bringing the Belarussian military into the fight. The United States and its allies are increasing defense support for Ukraine while warning that Russia could use chemical, biological, or even tactical nuclear weapons. In our sister Geopolitical Strategy service we argue that the war to get worse before it gets better, with Russia determined to replace the government in Kiev. US investors should expect continued equity market volatility. US and global growth expectations are yet to be fully downgraded as a result of the global energy shortage – the Fed now expects GDP growth of 2.8% while the Atlanta Fed shows GDP clocking in at 1.3%, well below consensus expectations (Chart 2). Corporate earnings will suffer downgrades as a result of higher energy costs. The Federal Reserve just started hiking interest rates and it is not discouraged by foreign affairs. Real rates will rise. Chairman Jerome Powell sounded a hawkish tone by saying that he is willing to hike by 50 basis points at a time if required. The threat of a wage-price spiral is real. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is on the verge of inverting. The Fed’s new interest rate projections suggest that the interest rate will rise above the neutral rate in 2023-24. Chart 2Growth Will Take A Hit Ukraine’s Impact On The Midterm Elections A negative foreign policy and macroeconomic background will compound the Democratic Party’s woes in the midterm elections. Biden’s approval rating is languishing at Donald Trump levels, yet without Trump’s high marks on the economy (Chart 3). Biden will not be able to turn the economy around because even if inflation starts to abate, voters will react to the one-year and two-year increase in inflation rather than any month-on-month improvement. Republicans have pulled ahead of Democrats in generic congressional ballot opinion polling (Chart 4). Even if Biden’s ratings stabilize ahead of the midterms (even if he handles Ukraine well), Democrats face a shellacking. The market is rightly priced for Republicans to take over all of Congress, though the GOP’s odds of taking the Senate are lower than consensus holds (Chart 5). A Republican victory is not negative for US corporate earnings but uncertainty over the general direction of US policy will continue to weigh on the equity market this year. Chart 3Biden’s Approval Ratings Chart 4Republicans Take The Lead Biden’s foreign policy can and will get a lot more aggressive if the Democratic Party views its election odds as so dismal that foreign tensions come to be seen as a source of badly needed popular support. That is not yet the case but developments with Russia and Iran could force the administration to adopt a more offensive foreign policy, which would be negative for financial markets. Hence investors will have to worry about rising policy uncertainty over the 2022-24 political cycle. Chart 5Midterm Election Odds Biden’s Policy Toward Russia And Europe It is too soon to say precisely what is the “Biden Doctrine” of foreign policy. The withdrawal from Afghanistan and the war in Ukraine were thrust upon Biden. What will define his foreign policy is how he handles Russia, Iran, and China going forward. By the end of the year, Biden will have forged his foreign policy doctrine, for better or worse. Biden began with a defensive foreign policy. His administration’s primary intention is to refurbish US alliances in Europe and Asia to counter Russia and China. Consider: In 2021, Biden condoned Germany’s deepening economic and energy integration with Russia (i.e. the Nord Stream II pipeline). Russia’s invasion forced Germany to change its mind and join the US and other democracies in imposing harsh sanctions on Russia. Even so, the US is calibrating its actions to what the European allies can stomach. Biden is attempting to negotiate new trade deals with allies, by contrast with President Trump’s tendency to slap tariffs on allies as well as rivals.1 Biden is likely to try to revive the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with Europe, he is scheduled to restart talks with the UK about a post-Brexit trade deal, and he will probably attempt to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in future. Now that Russia has invaded Ukraine, Biden’s foreign policy is becoming more aggressive, albeit still within certain limitations: The US is not willing to send troops to defend Ukraine or impose a no-fly zone, which would trigger direct conflict with Russia. But the US is continuing to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons, which helped precipitate the war. Congress recently voted to increase Ukraine aid by $13.6 billion, including $6.5 billion in defense support, including drones, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and Javelin anti-tank missiles. These are supposed to start arriving in Ukraine in a few days. The US is reportedly looking into providing Ukraine with Soviet-era SA-8 air defense, though not the S-300s missile defense.2 The US is bulking up its military presence across Europe to deter Russia from broadening its attacks beyond Ukraine. Biden has declared a red line in that he will defend “every inch” of NATO territory. This means that a single Russian attack that spills over into Poland or another NATO country will precipitate a new and bigger crisis (and financial market selloff). The risk going forward is that American policy could grow increasingly aggressive to the point that tensions with Russia escalate. Unlike Russia and Europe, the US does not have vital national interests at stake in Ukraine. American national security is not directly threatened by the war there. Hence the US can afford to take actions that its European allies would prefer not to take. As long as Biden prioritizes solidarity with the Europeans, geopolitical risks may be manageable for the markets. But if Biden attempts to lead an even bolder charge against Russia (or China), then risks will become unmanageable. So far Biden is allowing Europe to impose sanctions at its own pace and intensity. The Europeans must tread more carefully than the US, lest sanctions cause a broad energy cutoff that plunges their economy into recession along with Russia’s. This would destabilize the whole Eurasian continent and increase the chances of strategic miscalculation and a broader military conflict. Europe has opted for a medium-term strategy of energy diversification while avoiding the US’s outright boycott of Russian energy. The EU depends on Russia for 26% of its oil and 16% of its natural gas imports (Chart 6). The dependency is higher for certain countries. Germany, Italy, Hungary, and others oppose an outright boycott – and a single EU member can veto any new sanctions. Theoretically the Europeans could ban oil while still accepting natural gas. Natural gas trade routes are fixed due to physical pipelines, whereas oil is more easily rerouted, leaving Russia with alternatives if Europe stops importing oil. But Russia exports 63% of its oil to developed markets and 65% of its natural gas, with the bulk of that going to the European Union at 48% and 15% respectively (Chart 7). Russia’s economy would suffer from an oil ban and it would assume that a natural gas ban would soon follow, which could unhinge expectations that war tensions can be contained. Chart 6EU Mulls Boycott Of Russian Oil Chart 7Russian Regime Depends On O&G Given the damaged state of the Russian economy and high costs of war, Moscow will probably keep accepting energy revenues as long as Europe is buying. But if it believes Europe will cut off the flow, then it has an incentive to act first. This is a risk, not our base case. Still, as Russia targets the capital Kiev with intense shelling and civilian casualties increase, US pressure for an expansion of sanctions will increase. This is the risk that investors need to monitor. If the US brings the EU around to adopting sanctions on Russian energy then equity markets will plunge anew. And since Europe is diversifying over time anyway, Russia will have to escalate the war now to try to achieve its aims before its source of funds dries up. Biden’s Policy Toward China Biden’s foreign policy also started out defensively with regard to China. Biden intended to stabilize relations, i.e. engage in some areas like climate policy and avoid expanding President Trump’s trade war. Both the Democratic Party and the Communist Party face important political events in 2022 and their inclination is to prevent global instability from interfering. But the Ukraine war has made this goal harder. As with Europe the immediate question is whether Biden will try to force China to cooperate on Russia sanctions. But in China’s case Biden is more likely to use punitive measures – at least eventually. After a two-hour bilateral phone call on March 18, Biden “described the implications and consequences if China provides material support to Russia as it conducts brutal attacks against Ukrainian cities and civilians.”3 Biden’s threat of sanctions is a negative for Chinese exporters and banks (Chart 8). Chinese stock markets were already suffering from China’s historic confluence of internal and external political and economic risks. The Ukraine war has increased the fear of western investors that investing in China will result in stranded capital when strategic tensions rise explode, as with Russia. Chart 8Biden Threatens China With Sanctions Economically, China is much more dependent on the West than Russia. While Germany and Russia take a comparable share of Chinese exports, at 3.4%and 2.0% respectively, the EU takes up more than three times as many Chinese exports as the Commonwealth of Independent States, at 15.4% versus 3.2% (Chart 9A Chart 9B). China was never eager to commit to an exclusive economic relationship with Russia at the expense of its western markets. Strategically, however, China cannot afford to reject Russia. Chart 9AEU Wary Of Targeting China Chart 9BEU Wary Of Targeting China   Russia has now severed ties with the West and has no choice but to offer favorable deals to China on the whole range of relations. China’s greatest strategic threat is US sea power; Russia offers a strategically vital overland source of natural resources. Russia also offers intelligence and security assistance in critical regions like Central Asia and the Middle East that China needs to access. Like Russia, China fears US containment policy and views US defense relations with its immediate neighbors as a fundamental national security threat. President Biden reassured China that US policy toward the Taiwan Strait has not changed but also said that the US opposes any unilateral attempt to change the status quo. The implication is that China will segregate its EU and Russia networks of trade and finance to minimize the impact of any US secondary sanctions. China will offer Russia some assistance while making diplomatic gestures to maintain economic relations with Europe. The Europeans will lobby the Americans not to expand sanctions on China. The Biden administration will be reluctant to increase sanctions on China immediately, since it wants to maintain global stability in general, control the pace of rising global tensions, and maintain maneuverability for immediate problems with Russia and Iran. Biden’s priority is to rebuild US alliances and Europe will be averse to expanding the sanction regime to China. Therefore any sanctions on China will come only slowly and with ample warning to global investors. But sanctions are possible over the course of the year. If the Biden administration concludes that it has utterly lost domestic support, that the midterm elections are a foregone conclusion, then it can afford to get tougher in the international arena in hopes that it can improve its standing with voters. Biden’s Policy Toward Iran While Afghanistan and Ukraine were thrust upon Biden, the major foreign policy challenge in which he retains the initiative is whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Thus it may be policy toward Iran and the Middle East that defines the Biden doctrine. The Ukraine war has not stopped the Biden administration from seeking to rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was a strategic US-Iran détente that sought to freeze Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for its economic development. The original nuclear deal occurred with Russia’s blessing after the US and EU overlooked Russia’s invasion of Crimea. Now negotiations toward rejoining that deal are reaching the critical hour. The US has supposedly offered Russia guarantees to retain Russian support. The reason for Biden to rejoin the 2015 deal is to open Iran’s oil and natural gas reserves to the global and European economy and thus mitigate the global energy shock ahead of the midterm elections. Iran could return one million barrels per day to global markets. There is also a strategic logic for normalizing relations with Iran: to maintain a balance of power in the Middle East, reduce US military commitment there, provide Europe with greater security, and free up resources to counter Russia and China. Whether the deal will fulfill these ends is debatable but the Biden administration apparently believes it will. Biden is capable of rejoining the deal because the critical concessions do not require congressional approval. Through executive action alone, Biden could meet Iran’s demands: sanctions relief, delisting the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, and ensuring that Russo-Iranian trade (especially nuclear cooperation) is not exempted from the new Russia sanctions. There will be domestic political blowback for each of these concessions but not as much as there will be if gasoline prices continue to rise due to greater global instability stemming from the Middle East. The Iranians are also capable of rejoining the deal. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in his Persian New Year speech, gave a green light for President Ebrahim Raisi’s administration to pursue policies that would remove US sanctions. Khamanei implied that Iran should let the West lift sanctions while continuing to fortify its economy to future US sanctions.4 While the US and Iran are clearly capable of a stop-gap deal, it will not be a durable agreement – and hence any benefits for global energy supply will be called into question. The reason is that the underlying strategic logic is suffering: Biden will appear incoherent if he alienates Saudi Arabia and the UAE while appealing to them to increase oil production – and they are more capable than Iran on this front (Chart 10). Biden will appear incoherent if he agrees to secure Russo-Iranian trade at the same time as he seeks to cut Russia off from all other trade. Biden may not achieve a reduction in regional tensions through an Iran deal, since Israel insists that it is not bound to the nuclear deal. If Iran does not comply with the nuclear freeze, Israel will ramp up military threats. The Iranians cannot trust American guarantees that the next president, in 2025, will not tear up the nuclear deal and re-impose sanctions on Iran. The Iranians need Russian and Chinese assistance so they cannot afford to embark on a special new relationship with the West. Ultimately the Iranians are highly likely to pursue deliverable nuclear weapons for the sake of regime survival, as our Geopolitical Strategy has argued. Chart 10US-Iran Deal Will Not Be Durable   Thus Biden may choose a deal with Iran but we would not bet on it. Moreover any stop-gap deal will be undermined in practice, so that the investment repercussions will be ephemeral. If Biden fails to clinch his Iran deal as expected, then the world faces an even larger energy shock due to rising tensions in the Middle East. Investment Takeaways The Biden administration’s foreign policy challenges will compound its macroeconomic challenges and weigh on the Democratic Party in the midterm elections. The war in Ukraine will hurt Biden and the Democrats primarily because of the energy shock. The energy shock will get worse if Biden fails to agree to a stop-gap deal with Iran. But we expect either the US or Iran to back out for strategic reasons. With Republicans likely to reclaim Congress this fall, US political polarization will remain at historically high levels over the course of the 2022-24 election cycle. However, Russia’s belligerence underscores our view that rising geopolitical threats will cause the US to unify and reduce polarization over the long run. The war reinforces our US Political Strategy themes of “Peak Polarization” and “Limited Big Government,” as a new bipartisan consensus is forming around the view that the federal government should take a larger role in the economy to address national challenges both at home and abroad. One of our cyclical investment ideas stemming from these themes is to buy cyber-security stocks. President Biden warned US government and corporations on March 21 that Russia could stage cyber attacks against the United States and that private businesses must be prepared. Cyber stocks have suffered amid the general rout in tech stocks but they are starting to recover. Year to date, they are outperforming the S&P 500, and the tech sector, and look to be starting to outperform defensive sectors (Chart 11). Chart 11Biden Warns Of Cyber Attacks   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     See Yuka Hayashi, “U.S., U.K. Strike Trade Deal to End Tariffs on British Steel and American Whiskey”, Wall Street Journal, March 22, wsj.com 2     See Nancy Youssef and Michael Gordon, “U.S. Sending Soviet Air Defense Systems It Secretly Acquired to Ukraine”, Wall Street Journal, March 21, wsj.com. 3    White House, “Readout of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Call with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China,” March 18, 2022, whitehouse.gov. 4    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei implied at his Persian New Year speech that a deal with the Americans could go forward. He emphasized the need to improve the economy and implied that some of the economic burdens will go away starting this year. He pointed to a way forward with US sanctions intact, while also saying that he did not discourage attempts to remove sanctions. “We should not tie the economy to sanctions... It is possible to make economic advances despite U.S. sanctions. It is possible to expand foreign trade, as we did, enter regional agreements and have achievements in oil and other areas … I never say to not go after sanctions relief, but I am asking you to govern the country in a way in which sanctions do not hurt us.” See “Iran's Khamenei Says Economy Should Not Be Tied to U.S. Sanctions,” Reuters, March 21, 2022, usnews.com.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

Executive Summary Tracking Inflation In 2022 Our base case view is that inflation will moderate in the coming months, allowing the Fed to deliver a steady pace of tightening (25 bps per meeting). A 50 bps rate hike is possible at some point this year, but only if long-maturity inflation expectations become un-anchored or core PCE inflation prints consistently above 0.30%-0.35% per month. Historical evidence suggests that Treasury securities perform best when the yield curve is very steep or very flat. All else equal, an inversion of the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope would make us more bullish on bonds. High-yield corporates have performed better than investment grade corporates during the recent sell-off. Investors should continue to favor high-yield corporates over investment grade. Bottom Line: Investors should maintain “at benchmark” portfolio duration and buy Treasury curve steepeners. We also maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. We Have Liftoff The Fed followed through on its earlier promise and lifted the funds rate by 25 basis points last week. FOMC participants also sharply revised up their expectations for the future pace of tightening, though this revision mostly just made the Fed’s forecast more consistent with what was already priced in the yield curve. Market rate hike expectations, as inferred from the overnight index swap curve, shifted up only slightly after the Fed’s announcement (Chart 1). Chart 1Rate Expectations As of Monday morning, the bond market is priced for 208 bps of tightening during the next 12 months and 174 bps between now and the end of the year. This is close to the median FOMC forecast which calls for 150 bps of further tightening this year followed by an additional 92 bps in 2023. Last week’s report highlighted the tricky situation faced by the Fed.1 On the one hand, the Fed must tighten quickly enough to keep long-dated inflation expectations anchored. On the other hand, the Fed wants to avoid tightening so quickly that it causes a recession. For investors, we think it makes sense to assume that the Fed will try to split the difference by lifting rates at a pace of 25 bps per meeting for at least the next 12 months. However, there are significant risks to both the upside and downside of this projection. The Odds Of A 50 bps Hike The upside risk is that inflation is sufficiently sticky that the Fed will feel the need to deliver a 50 bps rate hike at some point this year. Last week’s Fed interest rate projections show that 7 out of 16 FOMC participants think that at least one 50 bps rate hike will be necessary. Meanwhile, market prices are consistent with one 50 basis point rate hike and five 25 basis point rate hikes at this year’s six remaining FOMC meetings. We think the Fed will only deliver a 50 bps rate hike if inflation looks to be tracking above the committee’s 2022 forecast or if long-maturity inflation expectations become un-anchored to the upside. Related Report  Global Investment StrategyIs A Higher Neutral Rate Good Or Bad For Stocks? On the inflation front, the FOMC’s central tendency forecast calls for core PCE inflation of between 3.9% and 4.4% in 2022, with a median of 4.1%. To match this forecast, core PCE will have to average a monthly growth rate of between 0.30% and 0.35% in each of this year’s eleven remaining months (Chart 2).2 Every monthly inflation print above that range increases the odds of a 50 bps Fed move, every print below that range brings the odds down. As for long-maturity inflation expectations, the Fed likely views them as “well anchored” for the time being. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has broken meaningfully above the Fed’s target range but the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains consistent with the Fed’s goals (Chart 3). The University of Michigan’s survey measure of 5-10 year household inflation expectations has risen sharply, but it has not yet broken meaningfully above recent historical levels (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 2Tracking Inflation In 2022 Chart 3Inflation Expectations Our sense is that inflation is very close to peaking and that lower inflation in the back half of the year will apply downward pressure to inflation expectations and prevent the Fed from delivering a 50 bps hike at any single FOMC meeting. However, we will be closely tracking the evolution of Charts 2 and 3 to see if this situation changes. The Odds Of Skipping A Meeting Chart 4Financial Conditions The downside risk to the Fed’s expected rate hike path results from the fact that financial conditions have already responded aggressively to the Fed’s actions and communications. While it’s certainly true that financial conditions remain extremely accommodative in level terms (Chart 4), we must also acknowledge that, historically, the sort of rapid tightening of financial conditions that we have already seen is almost always followed by a significant slowdown in economic activity (Chart 4, panel 2). On top of all that, the yield curve is now completely flat beyond the 5-year maturity point and the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope is a mere 22 bps away from inversion (Chart 4, bottom panel). The Fed’s new interest rate projections show the median expected interest rate moving above estimates of the long-run neutral rate in 2023 and 2024. This sort of rate hike path is consistent with a mild inversion of the yield curve, and the Fed will likely downplay the yield curve’s recession signal during the next few months. That said, a deepening inversion of the yield curve will only increase market worries about an over-tightening of monetary policy. This could lead to a sell-off in risk assets that would accelerate the tightening of financial conditions and lead to expectations of even slower economic growth. The next section of this report explores what an inverted 2-year/10-year yield curve has historically meant for Treasury returns. Investment Implications Our base case view is that inflation will moderate in the coming months, allowing the Fed to deliver a steady pace of tightening (25 bps per meeting). We also see economic growth slowing but remaining solid enough to prevent a significant sell-off in risk assets and a deep inversion of the yield curve. We also acknowledge, however, that the risks to this view (in both directions) are unusually high. Given all that, our recommended investment strategy is to keep portfolio duration close to benchmark. The market is already well priced for a steady 25 bps per meeting pace of tightening and bond yields will merely keep pace with forwards if that pace is delivered. We also see yield curve steepeners profiting during the next 6-12 months as the yield curve’s flattening trend takes a pause now that market expectations have fully adjusted to the likely path of Fed rate increases. We remain neutral TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the long-end of the curve, but underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries at the front-end. Short-maturity TIPS will underperform as inflation moderates in H2 2022. The Yield Curve And Treasury Returns The historical relationship between the slope of the yield curve and Treasury returns is very interesting. To examine it, we first looked at historical data on excess Treasury index returns versus cash since 1989 (Table 1). Table 112-Month Treasury Excess Returns* Given Different Starting Points For 2-Year / 10-Year Treasury Slope Specifically, we show 12-month excess Treasury returns given different starting points for the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. For example, when the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope has been between 0 bps and 25 bps, the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index has historically outperformed a position in cash by an average of 2.75% during the next 12 months. A 90% confidence interval places expected returns between 1.75% and 3.73%, and excess Treasury returns were positive in 73% of historical observations. The first big conclusion that jumps out from Table 1 is that Treasuries perform best when the yield curve is either very steep or very flat. The worst periods for Treasury returns have tended to occur when the slope is between 25 bps and 100 bps. It’s easy to understand why a very steep yield curve would lead to strong Treasury returns. A steep curve means that Treasuries offer a large yield advantage versus cash, or put differently, an extremely rapid pace of rate hikes would be necessary for cash returns to overcome the carry advantage in bonds. It’s more difficult to understand why Treasury returns have been strong after instances of curve inversion. The most likely reason is that market participants have tended to overestimate the odds of the Fed achieving a “soft landing” and have underestimated the odds of an upcoming recession and rate cuts. The data used in Table 1 are limited in that observations only begin in 1989. As such, the table misses the Paul Volcker period of the early 1980s when Treasuries continued to sell off well after the curve inverted. Chart 5 extends the historical period back to the mid-1970s and uses shading to indicate periods of 2-year/10-year yield curve inversion. Chart 5Yields Tend To Peak Shortly After Curve Inversion Chart 5 reveals a pretty clear pattern. With the exception of the late-1970s/early-1980s episode, the 10-year Treasury yield tends to peak right around the time of 2-year/10-year yield curve inversion, or shortly after in the case of 1989. What can we take away from this analysis? First, the evidence suggests that we should have a bias toward taking more duration risk in our portfolio if and when the yield curve inverts. A more deeply inverted yield curve should also be viewed as a stronger bond-bullish signal than a modestly inverted yield curve. Second, we must acknowledge the major risk to this strategy. Specifically, the risk that inflation will be so high that the Fed will continue to tighten aggressively even after the yield curve inverts, as Paul Volcker did in the early-1980s. Our sense is that the odds of a repeat “Volcker moment” are low. Inflation will naturally fall as the pandemic’s impact wanes and the Fed won’t be forced to deliver another hawkish shock to market expectations. Therefore, we maintain our “at benchmark” recommendation for portfolio duration for now, but we may turn more bullish on bonds if the yield curve inverts. The Poor Performance Of Investment Grade Bonds Chart 6IG Has Lagged HY One notable aspect of recent bond market moves has been that the performance of investment grade corporate bonds has significantly lagged the performance of high-yield corporate bonds during the recent period of spread widening (Chart 6). This is highly unusual. Typically, we expect bonds with more credit risk to behave like “higher beta” securities. That is, we expect lower-rated bonds to perform better in bull markets and worse in bear markets.3 The typical relationships held earlier in the cycle. Chart 7A shows that high-yield corporate bonds delivered stronger excess returns than investment grade corporate bonds from the March 2020 peak in spreads through the end of that year. Chart 7B shows that high-yield continued to outperform investment grade throughout the bull market for spreads in 2021. Chart 7ACorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: March 2020 To December 2020 Chart 7BCorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: January 2021 To September 2021 Chart 7CCorporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: September 2021 To Present Based on that relationship, we would expect high-yield to perform worse than investment grade since spreads troughed in September 2021, but that has not been the case (Chart 7C). How do we explain the relatively weak performance of investment grade corporates relative to high-yield? One possible explanation is that the industry composition of the investment grade and high-yield bond universes is different. High-yield has a large concentration in the Energy sector while investment grade is more geared toward Financials. Given the recent surge in oil prices, it’s possible that the strong performance of Energy credits is driving the return divergence between investment grade and high-yield. Chart 8 shows the performance of each individual industry group within both investment grade and high-yield since the September 2021 trough in spreads. It shows that Energy bond returns have indeed been stronger than for other sectors. In fact, high-yield Energy excess returns have been positive! Chart 8Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Versus DTS: September 2021 To Present However, Chart 8 mainly reveals that industry composition only explains part of the divergence between investment grade and high-yield returns. Notice that every single high-yield industry group has outperformed its investment grade counterpart since September 2021. This suggests that there is a more fundamental reason for the divergence between investment grade and high-yield performance. Chart 9Following The 2018 Roadmap Our own sense is that the corporate bond market is following the roadmap from early 2018 (Chart 9). At that time, Fed tightening pushed the Treasury slope below 50 bps and investment grade corporates started to perform poorly, presumably because the removal of monetary accommodation justified somewhat wider corporate bond spreads. However, high-yield performed well in early 2018 as there was no material increase in corporate default risk, even though the Fed was tightening. A similar market narrative could easily be applied to today. Back in 2018, the market narrative shifted late in the year when investors suddenly decided that Fed tightening had gone too far. High-Yield sold off sharply and caught up with investment grade. The Fed was then forced to end its tightening cycle and corporate bonds rallied in early 2019. We see this 2018 roadmap as a significant risk, but not destiny. While there’s a chance that the market will soon decide that the Fed has over-tightened, leading to a sharp sell-off in high-yield. There’s also a chance that gradual Fed rate hikes will continue for much longer than the market anticipates without meaningfully slowing the economy. In that case, high-yield returns would remain solid for some time and the recent spread widening in investment grade would probably abate. For the time being, we find ourselves more inclined toward the latter scenario. Bottom Line: Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds within a US bond portfolio. We may soon get a chance to upgrade our corporate bond allocation if inflationary pressures abate and the war in Ukraine shows signs of de-escalation. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Soft Landing Is Still Possible”, dated March 15, 2022. 2 PCE data is so far only updated to January 2022. 3 In this report we use Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) as a simple measure of a bond index’s credit risk. A higher DTS means that a bond has greater credit risk and vice-versa. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations