Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys
Highlights Chart 1Bond Yields Have Upside In A Blue Sweep Today’s US election has important implications for the near-term path of bond yields. In particular, a “blue sweep” outcome where the Democrats win control of the House, Senate and White House will probably cause yields to jump (Chart 1), as such an outcome virtually guarantees a large fiscal relief package early next year. Fiscal negotiations will be more contentious if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, and yields could decline this evening if that occurs. However, no matter the election outcome, our 6-12 month below-benchmark portfolio duration recommendation will not change tomorrow. The economic recovery appears to be on track and some further fiscal stimulus is likely next year no matter who prevails tonight. The stimulus will just be smaller if a divided government necessitates compromise. In any case, bond investors should keep portfolio duration below-benchmark and stay overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. They should also maintain positions in nominal and real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 99 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -300 bps. Corporate bonds are certainly not as cheap as they were back in March, but we still see acceptable value in the sector. The corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is at its 20th percentile since 1995 and the equivalent Baa spread is at its 28th percentile (Chart 2). Both levels appear somewhat expensive at first blush. However, considering the strong tailwinds from the Fed’s extraordinarily accommodative interest rate policy and emergency lending facilities, we see a lot of room for further tightening. Corporate bond issuance increased in September, though it remains well below the extreme levels seen in the spring (panel 4). The fact that the Financing Gap – the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings – turned negative in the second quarter suggests that firms have enough cash to cover their investment needs (bottom panel). This will keep issuance low in the coming months. At the sector level, we continue to recommend overweight allocations to subordinate bank bonds,1 Healthcare and Energy bonds.2 We also advise underweight allocations to Technology3 and Pharmaceutical bonds.4 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 86 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -373 bps. Ba-rated bonds outperformed lower-rated credits in October, and they remain the best performing corporate credit tier since the March 23 peak in spreads (See Appendix A). In terms of value, if we assume a 25% recovery rate on defaulted debt and a minimum required spread of 150 bps in excess of default losses, then the High-Yield index is priced for a default rate of 4.8% during the next 12 months (Chart 3). Such a large drop in the default rate cannot be ruled out completely, but it would necessitate a rapid pace of economic recovery. We are not yet confident enough in the recovery to position for such a fast drop-off in defaults, especially with Job Cut Announcements still well above pre-COVID levels (bottom panel). We therefore continue to recommend an overweight allocation to the Ba-rated credit tier – where access to the Fed’s emergency lending facilities is broadly available – and an underweight allocation to bonds rated B and below. At the sector level, we advise overweight allocations to high-yield Technology5 and Energy bonds.6 We are underweight the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical sectors.7 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -39 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS index option-adjusted spread (OAS) tightened 11 bps on the month to land at 72 bps. This is now slightly below the 76 basis point spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds but well above the 62 bps offered by Agency CMBS and the 29 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. Despite the relatively attractive OAS, we remain concerned that the elevated primary mortgage spread is a warning that refinancing risk is greater than what is currently being priced in the market (Chart 4). Yes, the mortgage spread has tightened during the past few months, but it remains 35 bps above its average 2019 level. This suggests that the mortgage rate could fall another 35 bps due to spread compression alone, even if Treasury yields are unchanged. Such a move would lead to a significant increase in prepayment losses. The recent spike in the mortgage delinquency rate does not pose a near-term risk to spreads as it is being driven by households that have been granted forbearance from the federal government (panel 4). The risk for MBS holders only comes into play if many households are unable to resume their regular mortgage payments when the forbearance period expires early next year. But even in that case, further government intervention to either support household incomes or extend the forbearance period would mitigate the risk. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 30 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -284 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 151 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -420 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 18 bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -690 bps. Local Authority debt underperformed Treasuries by 21 bps in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -362 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 7 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -33 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -7 bps. US dollar weakness is usually a boon for Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign and Foreign Agency returns. However, this year’s dollar weakness has been relative to other Developed Market currencies. In recent months, the dollar has actually strengthened versus EM currencies (Chart 5). Value also remains poor for EM Sovereigns, which continue to offer a lower spread than Baa-rated corporate debt (panel 4). We looked at EM Sovereign valuation on a country-by-country basis in a recent report.8 We concluded that Mexican and Russian bonds offer the most compelling risk/reward trade-offs relative to the US corporate sector. Of those two countries, Mexican debt offers the best opportunity as US politics remain a concern for the Russian currency. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 41 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -464 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Municipal bond spreads versus Treasuries tightened in October, but value remains exceptional with most maturities trading at a positive before-tax spread. As we showed in a recent report, municipal bonds are also attractively priced relative to corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum.9 On a duration-matched basis, the Bloomberg Barclays General Obligation and Revenue Bond indexes trade at before-tax premiums relative to corporate bonds of the same credit rating, an extremely rare occurrence (Chart 6). Extraordinary valuation is the main reason for our recommendation to overweight municipal bonds. The severe ongoing state & local government credit crunch is a concern, but it is a risk we are willing to take. If the Democrats win the House, Senate and White House this evening – a fairly likely scenario – federal aid for state & local governments will be delivered in January. This would alleviate a lot of concern. But even in the absence of federal assistance, the combination of austerity measures (bottom panel) and all-time high State Rainy Day Fund balances should help stave off a wave of municipal downgrades. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-steepened in October, largely due to rising expectations of a “blue sweep” election outcome. The 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes steepened 18 bps and 9 bps, respectively, to reach 74 bps and 127 bps. Our expectation is that continued economic recovery will cause investors to price-in eventual monetary tightening at the long-end of the Treasury curve. With the Fed maintaining a firm grip on the front end, this will lead to Treasury curve bear steepening. More bear steepening is likely if the Democrats win the House, Senate and White House tonight, as this would mean that a large amount of fiscal stimulus is coming early next year. But we will stick with our curve steepening recommendation regardless of the election outcome. No matter who wins the election, some further fiscal stimulus is likely on a 6-12 month horizon. We recommend positioning for a steeper curve by owning the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position is designed to profit from 2/10 curve steepening. Valuation is a concern with our recommended steepener, as the 5-year yield is below the yield on the duration-matched 2/10 barbell (Chart 7). However, the 5-year looked much more expensive during the last zero-lower-bound period between 2010 and 2013 (bottom 2 panels). We anticipate a return to similar valuation levels. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 38 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -93 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 7 bps and 5 bps on the month. They currently sit at 1.71% and 1.82%, respectively. Core CPI rose 0.19% in September and the year-over-year rate held steady at 1.73%. The 12-month trimmed mean CPI ticked down from 2.48% to 2.37%, so the gap between core and trimmed mean continued to narrow (Chart 8). We anticipate further narrowing in the months ahead, and therefore expect core CPI to come in relatively hot. For this reason, we recommend maintaining an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, even though the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is no longer cheap according to our Adaptive Expectations Model (panel 2).10 Inflation pressures may moderate once core and trimmed mean inflation measures converge, and this could give us an opportunity to tactically reduce TIPS exposure sometime next year. We also recommend holding real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. With the Fed now officially targeting an overshoot of its 2% inflation goal, we would expect the cost of 2-year inflation protection to rise above the cost of 10-year inflation protection (panel 4). With the Fed also exerting more control over short-dated nominal yields than over long-term ones, we expect that short-maturity real yields will come under downward pressure relative to the long end (bottom panel). ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +72 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 6 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +59 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 29 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +157 bps. Aaa ABS are a high conviction overweight, given that spreads remain elevated compared to historical levels and that the sector benefits from Fed support through the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF). However, spreads are even more attractive in non-Aaa ABS (Chart 9) and we recommend owning those securities as well. This is despite the fact that only Aaa-rated bonds are eligible for TALF. We explained our rationale for owning non-Aaa consumer ABS in a June report.11 We noted that stimulus received from the CARES act caused disposable income to increase significantly since February. Then, faced with fewer spending opportunities, households used much of that windfall to pay down consumer debt (panel 4). Granted, further income support from fiscal policymakers is needed now that the CARES act’s enhanced unemployment benefits have expired. But given the substantial boost to savings that has already occurred, we are confident that more stimulus will arrive in time to prevent a wave of consumer bankruptcies. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -250 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 10 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -73 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 72 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -738 bps (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa Non-Agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to non-Aaa CMBS. Our reasoning is simple. Aaa CMBS are eligible for TALF, meaning that spreads can still tighten even as the hardship in commercial real estate (CRE) continues. Without Fed support, non-Aaa CMBS will struggle to deal with tightening CRE lending standards and falling demand (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +17 bps. The average index spread tightened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 62 bps, well above typical historical levels (bottom panel). At its last meeting, the Fed decided to slow its pace of Agency CMBS purchases. It will no longer seek to increase its Agency CMBS holdings, but will instead purchase only what is “needed to sustain smooth market functioning”. This is nonetheless a Fed back-stop of the market, and it does not change our overweight recommendation. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. TablePerformance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of October 30TH, 2020) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of October 30TH, 2020) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 63 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 63 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of October 30TH, 2020) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Case Against The Money Supply”, dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market”, dated September 22, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market”, dated October 13, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation
Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights Duration: The Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target and the emerging correlation between bond yields and a “blue sweep” election outcome were the two main catalysts that caused us to reduce our recommended portfolio duration stance last week. Monetary Policy: The Fed is unlikely to increase its pace of Treasury purchases, unless a selloff in risky assets (equities and credit) threatens the economic recovery. As long as the Fed sticks with its ultra-dovish interest rate guidance, a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve will not cause such a selloff. Economy: Weekly claims data are consistent with a continued decline in the unemployment rate, due mostly to fewer temporarily unemployed workers. All in all, the US economy is recovering, but it remains very far from full employment. Feature Chart 1Real Yields Have Troughed After having advocated “at benchmark” portfolio duration since March, we officially lowered our recommended duration stance to “below benchmark” in last week’s Special Report.1 Two main catalysts led us to this decision. First, there was the Fed’s late-August adoption of an Average Inflation Target. This was an important bond-bearish catalyst because it signaled that the Fed’s reaction function has reached its maximum dovishness. Treasury yields stayed low throughout the summer even as the economy recovered because the Fed was simultaneously guiding the market toward a more dovish reaction function. As evidence for this dynamic, notice that between March and August the uptrend in the cost of inflation compensation was completely offset by falling real yields (Chart 1). But now, the Fed has officially adopted its new Average Inflation Targeting framework. In addition, it has promised not to lift rates at all until inflation is above its 2% target and is expected to overshoot that target for some time. To get more dovish from here, the Fed would probably need to actually increase its long-run inflation target from 2% to 3%, a step it is not prepared to take. For this reason, we expect that the Fed has exhausted its ability to push real yields lower as the economy recovers. With the Fed’s interest rate reaction function at maximum dovishness, only a negative economic growth shock can push yields lower. With the Fed’s interest rate reaction function at maximum dovishness, only a negative economic growth shock can push yields lower. Such a shock would cause investors to anticipate a slower return of inflation and thus push bond yields down, even if the market’s assessment of the Fed’s willingness to respond to inflationary pressures (aka its reaction function) remains constant. The failure of Congress to deliver additional fiscal stimulus after the expiry of the CARES act’s main income-supporting provisions is the sort of thing that could cause such a shock. However, September’s market action made it clear that investors are willing to look past the failure to deliver a bill if they can look forward to a larger fiscal stimulus in January. As we wrote last week, the most likely election outcome of the Democrats winning the House, Senate and White House would certainly deliver on that promise. Bottom Line: The Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target and the emerging correlation between bond yields and a “blue sweep” election outcome were the two main catalysts that caused us to reduce our recommended portfolio duration stance last week. Will The Fed Use Its Balance Sheet To Keep Bond Yields Low? Chart 2Fed Treasury Holdings Over Time One possible counterargument to our bond-bearish view is that, even if the Fed’s interest rate guidance is as dovish as it will get, the central bank will simply ramp up asset purchases to prevent any significant rise in long-maturity bond yields. Certainly, the Fed has not shied away from transacting in the Treasury market this year (Chart 2). In fact, the Fed took down more than 100% of gross note and bond issuance in the second quarter (Chart 3) and its current stated policy is to purchase at least $80 billion of Treasury securities per month. At present, the Fed holds more than 35% of all outstanding Treasuries with more than 10 years to maturity and about one quarter of the outstanding supply for all other maturities (Chart 4). This is a significant presence in the Treasury market, but not so large that the Fed would think twice about increasing its pace of Treasury purchases if such a policy was deemed necessary. But what would actually make the Fed increase its pace of asset purchases? Would a modest bear-steepening of the Treasury curve (our base case outlook) be enough? We doubt it. Chart 3Fed Purchases Peaked In Q2 Chart 4Fed Owns A Good Chunk ##br##Of The Market Chart 5Financial Conditions Are Highly Accommodative The Fed would be concerned if broad measures of financial conditions started to tighten, as that would indicate a looming period of slower economic growth. But that’s very different from long-maturity Treasury yields moving somewhat higher in response to an improving economic outlook. In fact, to get a meaningful tightening in broad measures of financial conditions, we would need to see significant credit spread widening and weaker equity prices (Chart 5). A bear-steepening Treasury curve, even if long-dated yields move 40-50 bps higher, will not prompt a selloff in credit markets or equities as long as the market believes that the Fed is committed to maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance. Bottom Line: The Fed is unlikely to increase its pace of Treasury purchases, unless a selloff in risky assets (equities and credit) threatens the economic recovery. As long as the Fed sticks with its ultra-dovish interest rate guidance, a moderate bear-steepening of the Treasury curve will not cause such a selloff. Can The Fed Use It’s Balance Sheet To Keep Bond Yields Low? Chart 6Fed Purchases Work Mainly Through Signaling Interest Rate Intentions Of course, in the extreme, the Fed could decide to set a cap on the 10-year Treasury yield and promise to purchase as many securities as necessary to maintain that cap. This sort of Yield Curve Control would effectively prevent long-maturity Treasury yields from rising, even as the economy recovered. As discussed above, we think the economic situation would have to turn quite dire for the Fed to pursue such a policy. A more relevant question is whether, in the absence of a stated yield cap, the Fed’s current pace of $80 billion of Treasury purchases per month (or even $100 billion per month) will prevent Treasury yields from rising. Our sense is that, without a stated yield cap, Fed Treasury purchases won’t stop bond yields from rising. In fact, we see very little evidence to support the notion that changes in Fed Treasury purchases influence the trend in bond yields, beyond what the purchase announcements signal to markets about the Fed’s intentions with regards to interest rate policy. Consider Chart 6, which shows the 10-year Treasury yield alongside the Global Manufacturing PMI and two different measures of Fed Treasury purchases. At first blush, between 2010 and 2012, there is a fairly strong relationship between a falling 10-year Treasury yield and an increase in Fed Treasury holdings greater than five years. However, the correlation between the 10-year Treasury yield and the Global Manufacturing PMI during this period is even stronger. This suggests an alternative explanation where the decline in bond yields is driven by the market shifting its rate hike expectations out into the future in response to slowing economic growth. Greater Fed purchases only served to reinforce the Fed’s increasingly dovish interest rate guidance during this time. Without a stated yield cap, Fed Treasury purchases won’t stop bond yields from rising. The key point from Chart 6 is that it is difficult to identify periods when the Fed’s balance sheet policy and interest rate guidance suggest opposite outcomes for bond yields. Typically, when the Fed is ramping up asset purchases it is also signaling to the market that it will shift toward a more dovish interest rate policy. Similarly, when the Fed is reducing its asset purchases, it tends to also be preparing the market for eventual rate hikes. This makes it impossible to say conclusively whether a given move in bond yields is driven by interest rate guidance or balance sheet actions. In our minds, this casts a lot of doubt on the notion that the Fed could maintain its current interest rate guidance during the next 6-12 months while also preventing a rise in Treasury yields by increasing asset purchases. The policy of increasing asset purchases would appear incoherent if it wasn’t also paired with increasingly dovish forward rate guidance, guidance that the Fed is likely unwilling to deliver. Bottom Line: Even if the Fed modestly increases its monthly pace of Treasury purchases, or shifts some purchases further out the curve as some FOMC participants have suggested, the impact on long-dated Treasury yields will be negligible without a concurrent shift in interest rate guidance. The Hedging Effectiveness of Treasuries Is Diminished, But Not Gone Completely One topic that has come up a lot recently in our client interactions is the idea that Treasury securities are no longer an effective hedge for equity portfolios. There are two possible reasons why this could be true. The first is that with Treasury yields so close to the zero-lower-bound there is very little scope for capital appreciation in bonds. The second is that Treasury yields may not respond to falling equity prices by declining, as they have in the past. We don’t currently see much evidence for the second reason. The only way that bond yields wouldn’t decline alongside a major equity sell-off is if that sell-off was driven by high and rising inflation and expectations that the Fed would aggressively hike rates to combat higher prices. Inflation is nowhere near high enough for this to be a concern. The first reason, however, could hold some water. To test it, we first looked at this year’s COVID-driven 34% drop in the S&P 500 that occurred between February 19th and March 23rd (Table 1). If an investor purchased a 5-year Treasury note on February 19th and sold it on March 23rd, they would have earned 5.21% on that trade, offsetting some portion of the equity decline. The same trade in a 30-year T-bond would have earned 16.65%. Long-maturity Treasuries still perform their role as hedging instruments for equity portfolios. But with starting bond yields much lower today, Treasuries may not offer the same protection. Table 2 shows how much an investor would earn if they bought a Treasury security today, held it for six months, and during that timeframe the entire spot yield curve fell to zero. We also show what returns would be earned if the yield curve shifted in the same way it did during the Feb 19th – Mar 23rd equity selloff, except we don’t let any yields fall into negative territory.2 Table 1Total Returns From Stock Market Peak (Feb. 19th) To Stock Market Through (Mar. 23rd) Table 2Treasury Total Returns Over A Hypothetical 6-Month Period Notice that projected returns for shorter maturities in Table 2 are significantly lower than the returns earned during the Feb 19th – Mar 23rd episode. A 5-year Treasury note will earn only 1.90% during the next six months if the entire yield curve falls to zero, this is well below the 5.21% earned in February and March. However, for maturities beyond 10 years, returns are similar between Table 1 and Table 2. This makes sense because, unlike the short-end, those long-dated yields are still fairly far from the zero bound. Bottom Line: Treasuries still perform their role as hedging instruments for equity portfolios, but investors now have to move further out the curve, and thus take more interest rate risk, to get the same protection they received from less-risky shorter-maturity notes in the past. US Economy: Digging Into Claims Chart 7Labor Market Update Initial unemployment claims spooked some investors when the weekly number jumped to +898k two weeks ago, even as the consensus was calling for a small decline.3 But that spike was completely reversed last week, and a good chunk of it was actually revised out of the data. A delay in California’s reporting was one reason for the big swing. The state had failed to report claims data for two consecutive weeks at the beginning of the month. This meant that the national claims number was based on an assumed figure for the state. California resumed reporting last week and the result was a big drop in overall claims, back down to +787k. Stepping back from the large swings of the past two weeks, a good portion of which are statistical artifacts stemming from California’s reporting delay, we see that overall employment trends haven’t changed much. Initial claims have flattened-off since late-August, but continuing claims are still falling rapidly (Chart 7). This suggests that the unemployment rate will drop again next week when October’s employment report is released. The big question in next week’s employment report will be whether the decline in the unemployment rate is once again driven by falling temporary unemployment, or whether the number of permanently unemployed workers will reverse its uptrend (Chart 7, bottom panel). All in all, the labor market data continue to paint a picture of an economy that is recovering but that still has a very large output gap. In other words, the economy is a long way from generating meaningful inflationary pressure. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep”, dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Blank cells in Table 2 mean that returns are the same as in the “Spot Curve Falls To 0%” scenario. 3 Please see BCA Daily Insights, “Slowing US Labor Market Momentum: Investors Should Not Have Been Surprised”, dated October 15, 2020, available at din.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Global Duration: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Country Allocation: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. Treasury-Bund Spread: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures. Feature In a Special Report jointly published last week with our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy, we laid out the case for why US Treasury yields have bottomed and should now begin to drift higher.1 We reached that conclusion for two reasons: 1) there will be a major US fiscal stimulus after the upcoming US election, especially so if Joe Biden becomes president and the Democrats take the Senate; and 2) the Fed’s shift to Average Inflation Targeting in late August represented the point of maximum Fed dovishness. The investment conclusions were to reduce duration exposure, while also downgrading our recommended allocation to US government bonds to underweight. We also advised cutting exposure to non-US government bond markets with relatively higher sensitivity to changes in US bond yields, while increasing allocations to countries with a lower “yield beta” to US Treasuries (Table 1). Table 1Updated GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning In this follow-up report, we will further discuss the implications of our changed view on US yields for non-US developed market government bonds. This includes specific adjustments to the recommended country allocations in our model bond portfolio, as well as a new tactical trade to profit from a move higher in US yields that will not to be matched in Europe. Our Recommended Overall Duration Stance: Now Below-Benchmark The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound at very low levels across the developed economies. Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of economic sentiment measures and leading economic indicators, bottomed back in March and has soared sharply since then (Chart of the Week). Given the usual lead time between peaks and troughs of the Indicator and global bond yields - around nine months, on average – that suggests yields should bottom out sometime before year-end. Chart of the WeekA Cyclical, US-Led Bottoming Of Global Bond Yields Chart 2UST Yields About To Break Out? In the US, we now think we are past that point, as we discussed last week. The 10-year US Treasury yield has been drifting higher during the month of October and is now bumping up against its 200-day moving average of 0.83% (Chart 2). This is only the first such attempt at a trend breakout in yields, and such a move is unlikely prior to US Election Day - or, more accurately, “US Election Is Decided Day” which may not be November 3! The case for a future cyclical bottoming of global yields has been building for the past few months, even as yields have remained range-bound. Outside the US, however, momentum of bond yields and potential trend breakouts paint a more mixed picture. German and French bond yields remain stable and generally trendless, with Italian and Spanish yields continuing to grind lower. At the same time, yields in the UK, Canada and Australia have started to perk up but remain just below their 200-day moving averages. Bond yields have not responded to the sharp cyclical rebound across the developed world, with large gaps between elevated manufacturing PMIs and stagnant bond yields (Chart 3). Low inflation, ample spare economic capacity and dovish monetary policies are all playing a role, with bond markets not expecting an imminent inflation surge that could drive up yields and fuel expectations of tighter monetary policy. By way of contrast, China - where domestic services sectors have improved at a rapid pace from the COVID-19 recession and where the central bank is not running an overly accommodative monetary policy – has seen a more typical positive correlation between government bond yields and the rising manufacturing PMI over the past several months (Chart 4). This suggests that developed market bond yields can begin to normalize if the domestic services side of those economies emerges more forcefully from the lockdown-induced downturn. Chart 3A Wide Gap Between Growth & Yields Chart 4Are Chinese Yields Sending A Message? The news on that front is more optimistic in the US compared in Europe. The Markit services PMIs for the euro area and UK have all weakened over the past few months, with headline inflation rates flirting with deflation (Chart 5). Similar data in the US has trended in the opposite direction, with stronger US services activity with rising inflation. Chart 5Deflation Risks In Europe, Not The US The pickup in new COVID-19 cases, and the degree of the response by governments to contain it, has been far stronger in Europe and the UK than in the US on a population-adjusted basis (Chart 6). Lockdowns have become more widespread across Europe to contain the second larger wave of the virus. The recent softer services PMI data in the euro area and UK are a reflection of those greater economic restrictions and weaker confidence. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates. In the US, governments have been far less willing to implement politically unpopular restrictions in an election year, while lockdown-weary consumers have been more willing to go about their lives rather than stay sheltered at home. The result is a healthier tone to the US data compared to other countries, even with the number of new US cases on the rise again. This gap between the US economy and non-US economies is only magnified by the fiscal stimulus measures proposed by both US presidential candidates. As we discussed in last week’s Special Report, both the Biden and Trump platforms are calling for major fiscal stimulus – between $5-6 trillion over the next decade, including tax changes – although the Biden plan has much more front-loaded direct government spending, only partially offset by tax increases, if fully implemented. This is the “Blue Sweep” scenario, with a Biden victory and Democratic Party control of the US Congress, that is most bearish for US Treasuries, as the outcome would eventually help reduce the expected 2021 US fiscal drag of -7.2% of GDP as estimated by the latest IMF Fiscal Monitor (Chart 7). Even a re-elected Trump, however, would also mean more US fiscal stimulus, although with a mix of tax cuts and spending increases. Chart 6The Latest COVID-19 Wave Is Hitting Europe Harder Combined with an improving services sector and rising inflation, this puts the US in a much different economic position than the major economies of Europe. Chart 7Post-Election US Stimulus Will Offset Fiscal Drag There, the IMF is also projecting some fiscal drag in 2021, but now with a much less healthy domestic economy due to the COVID-19 surge and where inflation is already near 0%. Our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. There will likely be another round of fiscal measures to help combat virus-stricken economies in Europe and elsewhere, but the US election is bringing the issue to the forefront more quickly. In other words, the US will get a more bond-bearish fiscal stimulus before Europe does. Bottom Line: US Treasury yields have started to creep higher and the move is likely to continue in the coming months regardless of who wins the White House. Reduce overall global duration exposure to below-benchmark, focused on the US. Our Recommended Country Allocation: Downgrade US, Upgrade Lower-Beta Countries Net-net, our decision to reduce our recommended overall global duration stance to below-benchmark is largely driven by trends in the US that are more bond-bearish than in the rest of the developed world. This also has implications for our recommend country allocation in our model bond portfolio. First, are downgrading our recommended US Treasury allocation to underweight. We are also increasing our desired weighting in countries where government bond yields are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields – especially during periods when the latter are rising. We call this “upside yield beta”. The countries that have the highest such beta to US Treasuries are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, making them downgrade candidates (Chart 8). Similarly, lower upside beta countries like Germany, France, Japan and the UK are upgrade possibilities. Chart 8Favor Countries With Lower Yield Betas To USTs Already, we are seeing the widening of yield spreads between US Treasuries and non-US government markets – with more to come as US Treasuries grind higher over the next 6-12 months. We see the greatest upside for spreads between the US and the low upside yield beta countries – that means wider spreads for US-Germany, US-France, US-Japan and US-UK (Chart 9). Chart 9Expect More Underperformance From USTs Chart 10Fed QE Momentum Peaking, Unlike Other CBs Thus, this week are making significant changes to our strategic government bond country allocations (see page 15), as well as the country weightings in our model bond portfolio (see pages 13-14), based on our new view on US bond yields and non-US yield betas. Specifically, we are not only cutting our recommended US weighting to underweight, but we are also downgrading Canada and Australia from overweight to neutral. On the other side, we are upgrading UK Gilts to overweight from neutral, while also upgrading Germany, France and Japan to overweight. Importantly, we are maintaining our overweight stance on Italian and Spanish sovereign debt, as those markets are supported by greater European fiscal policy integration in the world of COVID-19 and, just as importantly, large-scale ECB asset purchases. More generally, the relative “aggressiveness” of central bank quantitative easing (QE) does play a role in our recommended country allocation. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. We expect the Fed to be more tolerant of higher Treasury yields if the move is driven by improving US growth and/or greater US fiscal stimulus – as long as the higher yields were not having a negative impact on equity or credit markets. This means less expected QE buying of Treasuries by the Fed. Conversely, given how aggressive the Reserve Bank of Australia and Bank of Canada have been with expanding their balance sheet via QE (Chart 10), this makes us reluctant to shift to the underweight stance on those countries implied by their high beta to rising US Treasury yields. Therefore, we are only downgrading those two countries to neutral. Bottom Line: Based on our view that US Treasury yields have more upside, we are making the following changes to our recommended country allocations in the government bond portion of our model bond portfolio: downgrading the US to underweight, downgrading higher-beta Canada and Australia to neutral, and raising lower-beta Germany, France, Japan and the UK to overweight. A New Tactical Trade: A UST-Bund Spread Widener Using Futures This week, we are also introducing a new recommended trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 16 to take advantage of our view on US bond yields: a 10-year US-Germany spread widening trade using government bond futures. Chart 11A Tactical Opportunity For A Wider UST-Bund Spread This trade makes sense for several reasons: Germany has one of the lowest yield betas to US Treasuries during periods when the latter is rising, as shown earlier. Our US Treasury-German Bund fundamental fair value spread model – which uses relative policy interest rates, unemployment and inflation between the US and the euro area as inputs - suggests that the spread is now far too tight after the massive rally in US Treasuries in 2020 (Chart 11). The main reason why the spread looks so “expensive” is that the underlying fair value has risen with US inflation rising and euro area inflation falling (Chart 12, bottom panel). The UST-Bund yield differential is not stretched from a technical perspective, when looking at deviations of the spread from its 200-day moving average or the 26-week change in the spread; both measures suggest room for additional spread widening before reaching historical extremes (Chart 13). Also, duration positioning by US fixed income investors is only around neutral, according to the JP Morgan duration survey, suggesting scope to push yields higher if bond investors become more defensive. Chart 12Inflation Differentials Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread Chart 13Technical Trends Favor A Wider UST-Bund Spread As a reference, we are initiating this trade with the cash bond 10-year US-Germany spread at +138bps, with a target range of +170-190bps over the 0-6 month horizon we maintain for our Tactical Overlay positions. Bottom Line: We introduce a new trade in our Tactical Overlay to capitalize on our expectation of higher US bond yields and a wider Treasury-Bund spread: selling 10-year Treasury futures versus buying 10-year German bund futures. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep", dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. 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 Does it still make sense to use historical yield betas for fixed income country allocation? Yes, favoring countries with higher government bond yield betas when global yields are falling, and vice versa, is still an appropriate way to manage fixed income risk – although betas do vary between global bond bull and bear markets. Can inflation breakevens and real yields continue moving in opposite directions? Yes, but that negative correlation will become less intense, especially in the US, with rising inflation expectations eventually becoming the more dominant influence on nominal bond yields. Will inflation breakevens continue to have a strong positive correlation with oil prices? Yes, but only for as long as non-energy inflation remains low and stable, which has made energy prices the only source of inflation variability in most developed countries. Feature Sleepy bond markets got a bit of a jolt over the past couple of weeks, with longer-maturity government bond yields moving higher across the developed markets, led by the US where the 30-year Treasury yield is now back to levels last seen in June. The move higher in US Treasury yields may be a sign that investors are taking the US election polling numbers – which now signal not only a Joe Biden victory on November 3, but also a swing of the US Senate to Democratic Party control – seriously. A so-called “Blue Sweep”, resulting in the full implementation of the Biden policy platform including a massive fiscal stimulus, is potentially bond bearish, and not only for US Treasuries, given the close correlation of US yields to other bond markets. There is a strong correlation between the level of bond yields, and the yield beta, for the major developed market countries. This brief burst of global bond market volatility, stemming from developments in the US, is a reminder that investors should always be aware of the importance of cross-market correlations when making trading and portfolio construction decisions. With that in mind, this week we ask some important questions about the critical correlations across global government bond markets that support our current investment recommendations – and under what conditions they could possibly change. Does It Still Make Sense To Use Historical Yield Betas For Fixed Income Country Allocation? Chart 1Developed Bond Yields Relative To The 'Global' Bond Yield One of the key elements underlying our bond country allocation recommendations is the concept of “yield beta”. Simply put, this is a measure of the sensitivity of changes in individual country bond yields to changes in the overall level of global bond yields. The way we measure yield betas is by using a regression (over a three-year rolling window) of monthly changes for an individual country’s 10-year bond yield on the monthly change of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index yield for the 7-10 year maturity bucket (as the proxy for the “global” 10-year yield). The regression coefficient on the individual country yield change is the yield beta. There is a strong correlation between the level of bond yields, and the yield beta, for the major developed market countries. Currently, the list of “high-yielders” – with 10-year government bond yields above the benchmark index yield – includes the US, Italy, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Chart 1). The low-yielders, with 10-year yields below the benchmark index yield, are Germany, France, Spain, the UK and Japan. When we look at the yield betas for that same list of countries, we can also break up the list into high-beta and low-beta bond markets. When we rank the ten countries by their rolling three-year yield betas, the five highest betas belong to the same five countries with the highest yields, and vice versa (Chart 2). This is an intuitive correlation, as countries with higher yield betas are, by definition, more volatile and should require higher yields from investors to compensate for that additional volatility. Chart 2The Higher-Yielding Countries Also Have Higher Yield Betas The yield betas are not stable over time for all countries, however. The US has consistently remained the highest beta market, and Japan the lowest beta market, over the past twenty years. Other countries have seen their yield betas evolve over time. For example, France, Spain and, more recently, the UK have seen their yield betas decline in recent years, while Italy has gone from being low-beta to one of the higher-beta markets. In our view, the evolution of yield betas relates to the “activism” of policymakers in each country. Higher-beta, higher-yield countries also have central banks that move interest rates higher and lower with more frequency compared to the low-beta, low-yield countries. In our view, the evolution of yield betas relates to the “activism” of policymakers in each country. That high-beta group includes bond markets linked to the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand – all central banks that are not shy about aggressively cutting or hiking interest rates. The low-beta markets have central banks that move rates very infrequently, like the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan. Table 1Yield Betas For The Major Developed Markets One other interesting point on yield betas is that they do vary depending on the overall direction of global bond yields. As a way to show this, we estimated “upside” and “downside” yield betas for the same ten countries shown earlier. Those betas were calculated by sorting the monthly yield changes for all countries by months when the benchmark global bond index yield was rising or falling. Thus, upside yield beta comes from a regression of monthly yield changes for individual countries on changes in overall global bond yields, but only using data for months when global yields increased. The opposite is true for downside beta, where only data from months when the global benchmark index yield declined are used. The individual yield betas – for the overall sample and the upside and downside groupings – are presented in Table 1. One conclusion that comes from breaking up the data this way is that countries that were in the low-beta group when looking at the full set of data have relatively high yield betas during periods of rising global yields, like France and the UK (Chart 3). In addition, when looking at downside betas, US Treasuries have the highest beta, by far, when global yields are falling – with yields for euro area countries having relatively lower betas (Chart 4). Chart 3Yield Betas During Periods Of Rising Global Yields Chart 4Yield Betas During Periods Of Falling Global Yields Our conclusion from this analysis is that yield betas do have a useful role in making country allocation decisions for global fixed income investors. Specifically, adjusting allocations based on a view on the overall direction of global bond yields should help better manage portfolio risk and, potentially, improve returns. Chart 5Italy Has Become High-Beta As Spreads Have Narrowed A final point on Italy – the reason Italy has had such a high yield beta over the past few years is because Italian government bond yields have been driven more by the reduction of Italian sovereign credit risk – including the redenomination risk from a potential Italian exit from the euro (Chart 5). As Italian credit spreads have melted away from the levels reached during the 2011/12 European Debt Crisis, yields have fallen faster than others during periods of falling global yields, and vice versa. Looking ahead, with the ECB continuing to be an aggressive buyer of Italian bonds in its various asset purchase programs, and with the COVID-19 pandemic forcing the European Union into a deeper level of economic co-operation – which now includes grants to Italy – the sovereign risk premium on Italian government debt should continue to narrow. That means Italy will continue to trade as a high-beta market when global yields are falling, and a low-beta market when yields are rising, making Italy an ideal overweight candidate in global bond portfolios. Bottom Line: Favoring countries with higher government bond yield betas when global yields are falling, and vice versa, is still an appropriate way to manage fixed income risk – although betas do vary between global bond bull and bear markets. Can Inflation Breakevens And Real Yields Continue Moving In Opposite Directions? The behavior of real bond yields over the past few months garnered a lot of attention in 2020, particularly the sharp fall in US TIPS yields into deeply negative territory. This has occurred at the same time as a widening of inflation breakevens, which exhibited a deeply negative correlation with real yields. The result: narrow trading ranges for nominal government bond yields in most developed countries, with moves in real yields and inflation breakevens largely offsetting each other. Adjusting allocations based on a view on the overall direction of global bond yields should help better manage portfolio risk and, potentially, improve returns. Looking at the history of real yields and inflation breakevens, periods of a negative correlation between the two are not unusual. In Chart 6, we show the range of historic correlations between 10-year inflation-linked bond yields, and 10-year inflation breakevens, for the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Canada and Japan since 2010. The dark bars represent the range of rolling correlations over a three-year period, while the red diamonds are a more recent correlation over the past thirteen weeks. All countries shown have seen periods of negative correlation, with only Australia and France having the most recent correlation be far lower than the historic experience. Chart 6Negative Real Yield/Breakevens Correlations Are Not Unprecedented So if a negative real yield/inflation breakeven correlation is not that unusual, then what is the cause of it? We see two drivers: the amount of spare capacity in an economy and the central bank policy response to it. We can see this by looking at the data from the countries with the two largest inflation-linked bond markets, the US and UK. In the US, real TIPS yields and inflation breakevens have generally been positively correlated only during Fed tightening cycles, specifically after the Fed has raised the fed funds rate above the rate of realized core inflation (Chart 7). This was the case in the tightening cycles of the mid-2000s and 2016-18. During those episodes, the Fed pushed the real funds rate steadily higher, which also had the effect of pushing real TIPS bond yields higher, even as inflation expectations were stable-to-rising. Looking at the history of real yields and inflation breakevens, periods of a negative correlation between the two are not unusual. The opposite held true during Fed easing cycles since the advent of the TIPS market in the late 1990s, when the Fed always lowered the funds rate below realized inflation. The result was a period of a falling real funds rate, leading to lower real TIPS yields and eventually triggering an increase in inflation breakevens. In other words, the correlation between breakevens and real yields became negative. In the UK, the negative correlation between real index-linked Gilt yields and inflation breakevens has been consistently negative since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 8). The Bank of England has barely moved policy rates since that crisis, while keeping nominal policy rates below 1% - a level that was consistently below core UK inflation. Thus, the Bank of England has maintained negative real policy rates for the past twelve years, with real Gilt yields declining steadily and inflation breakevens rising – a negative correlation - over that period. Chart 7Fed Policy Influences The US Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Chart 8A Persistently Negative Correlation Of UK Real Yields & Breakevens For both the US (Chart 9) and UK (Chart 10), the rolling 3-year correlation between real yields and breakevens has itself been correlated to the unemployment gap, or the difference between the unemployment rate and the full-employment NAIRU rate, over the past two decades. This suggests that the ebbs and flows of labor market slack, and how the Fed and Bank of England have responded to them by easing or tightening monetary policy, also play a role in determining the real yield/breakevens correlation. Chart 9Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Will Stay Negative In The US Chart 10Real Yield/Breakevens Correlation Will Stay Negative In The UK In the case of the US, a more extended UK-like period of negative real policy rates and real bond yields is likely if the Fed is to be taken at their word that they will keep rates low to engineer a US inflation overshoot. We suspect that the correlation will not be perfectly negative, as has occurred at times this year, with inflation expectations rising alongside stable-to-falling real TIPS yields as the US economy recovers from the COVID-19 shock – especially if there is a major boost from fiscal stimulus after next month’s elections. Bottom Line: We continue to see a case for inflation breakevens and real yields to stay negatively correlated in the developed economies over at least the next few years, as the labor market slack created by the 2020 COVID-19 global recession is slowly absorbed. That negative correlation will become less intense, especially in the US, with rising inflation expectations eventually becoming the more dominant influence on nominal bond yields. Will Inflation Breakevens Continue To Have A Strong Positive Correlation With Oil Prices? While the negative correlation between real inflation-linked bond yields and real yields has gotten attention this year, the positive correlation between breakevens and oil prices has become familiar to investors over the past several years. That correlation has been persistently high and positive across all developed economies since the 2008 financial crisis. Prior to that, oil prices and inflation breakevens moved together less frequently and, at times, were even uncorrelated (Chart 11). In both the US and euro area, the lack of non-energy inflation is the main reason why breakevens and oil are so correlated. In our view, the reason why breakevens and oil became strongly correlated is relatively straightforward. Since the 2008 crisis and ensuing Great Recession, swings in oil prices have been the main driver of changes in realized inflation, with ex-energy inflation rates staying very low and stable. We can see that in the US, where ex-energy CPI inflation has been broadly stable around 2% for the past decade, even as headline CPI inflation has seen more variability and has even approached 0% after the collapse in oil prices in 2014/15 and 2020 (Chart 12). Chart 11A Persistent Strong Correlation Of Global Breakevens To Oil Chart 12Strong Oil/Breakevens Correlation While US Ex-Energy Inflation Is Low Chart 13Energy Has Become The Only Source Of Euro Area Inflation The same dynamics, only more intense, exist in the euro area. Ex-energy inflation has struggled to stay above 1% over the past decade, leaving changes in energy prices as an even greater determinant of realized headline inflation than in the US (Chart 13). In both the US and euro area, the lack of non-energy inflation is the main reason why breakevens and oil are so correlated. Until there is evidence of a more broad-based move higher in inflation rates outside of oil - which will almost certainly require an extended period of above-trend global growth and accommodative global fiscal and monetary policies - trading inflation breakevens off oil will still be a successful strategy. Bottom Line: Global inflation breakevens will maintain a strong positive correlation to oil prices, but only for as long as non-energy inflation remains low and stable, which has made energy prices the only source of inflation variability in most developed countries Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Both public opinion polls and betting markets suggest that Joe Biden will become President, with the Democrats gaining control of the Senate and retaining the House of Representatives. Such a “blue wave” would have mixed effects on the value of the S&P 500. On the one hand, corporate taxes would rise under a Biden administration. On the other hand, trade relations with China would improve. The Democrats would also push for more fiscal stimulus, which the stock market would welcome. The odds of Republicans and Democrats agreeing on a major new stimulus deal before the November elections look increasingly slim. In a blue wave scenario, the Democrats will enact $2.5-to-$3.5 trillion in pandemic relief shortly after Inauguration Day. Joe Biden‘s platform also calls for around 3% of GDP in additional spending on infrastructure, health care, education, climate, housing, and other Democratic priorities. Unlike in late 2016, the Fed is in no mood to raise interest rates. Large-scale fiscal easing will push down the value of the US dollar, while giving bond yields a modest boost. Non-US stocks will outperform their US peers. Value stocks will outperform growth stocks. Looking further out, Republicans will move to the left on economic issues, leaving corporate America with no clear backer among the two major parties. As such, while we are constructive on equities over the next 12 months, we see grave dangers ahead later this decade. Look, Here's The Deal: Joe Biden Is In The Lead With four weeks remaining until the US presidential election, Joe Biden remains on course to become the 46th president of the United States. According to recent public opinion polls, the former vice president leads Donald Trump by 10 percentage points nationwide, and by 4 points in battleground states (Chart 1). Far fewer voters are undecided today compared to 2016. This suggests that there is less scope for President Trump to narrow his deficit in the polls. Betting markets give Biden a 68% chance of prevailing in the race for the White House (Chart 2). They also assign a 67% probability that the Democrats will take control of the Senate and 89% odds that they will retain their majority in the House of Representatives. Chart 1Opinion Polls Favor Biden ... Chart 2.... As Do Betting Markets Mixed Impact On The S&P 500 What would the market implications of a “blue wave” be? Our sense is that the overall impact on the value of the S&P 500 would be small, largely because some negative repercussions from a Democratic sweep would be offset by positive repercussions. On the negative side, Biden has pledged to raise the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% rate that prevailed in 2017. He has also promised to introduce a minimum of 15% tax on the income that companies report in their financial statements to shareholders, raise taxes on overseas profits, and lift payroll taxes on households with annual earnings in excess of $400,000. Together, these measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings-per-share by 9%-to-10%. On the positive side, while geopolitical tensions will persist, US trade relations with China would likely improve if Joe Biden were to become the president. Biden has roundly criticized Trump’s tariffs, saying that they are “crushing farmers” and “hitting a lot of American manufacturing… choking it to within an inch of its life.”1 He has pledged to honor multilateral agreements. The World Trade Organization concluded on September 15 that Trump’s tariffs violated international trade rules. This judgement and the desire to turn the page on the Trump era could give Biden the impetus to eventually roll back some of the tariffs. In contrast, having been stricken by what he has called the “China virus,” Trump could take things personally and retaliate with a flurry of new punitive measures. Fiscal policy would be further loosened in a blue wave scenario, an outcome that the stock market would welcome. Voters would also applaud more pandemic relief. Table 1 shows that 72% of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, support the broader contours of the $2 trillion stimulus package that President Trump has rejected. Table 1Voters Support A New $2 Trillion Coronavirus Stimulus Package By A Fairly Wide Margin At this point, the odds of Republicans and Democrats agreeing on a major new stimulus deal before the November elections look increasingly slim. If Biden wins and the Republicans lose control of the senate, the Democrats would likely enact a stimulus package worth $2.5-to-$3.5 trillion shortly after Inauguration Day on January 20. In addition to pandemic-related stimulus, Joe Biden has called for around 3% of GDP in spending on infrastructure, health care, education, climate, housing, and other Democratic priorities. Only about half of those expenditures would be matched by higher taxes, implying substantial net stimulus for the economy. A Weaker Dollar And Modestly Higher Bond Yields The greenback jumped on Tuesday after President Trump said he is breaking off negotiations with the Democrats over a new stimulus bill. This suggests that the dollar will weaken if fiscal policy is loosened. If that were to happen, it would be different from what transpired following Trump’s victory in 2016 when the dollar strengthened. Why the disconnect between now and then? The answer has to do with the outlook for monetary policy. Back then, the Fed was primed to start raising rates again – it hiked rates eight times beginning in December 2016, ultimately bringing the fed funds rate to 2.5% by end-2018 (Chart 3). This time around, the Fed is firmly on hold, with the vast majority of FOMC members expecting policy rates to stay at rock-bottom levels until at least 2023. This suggests that nominal bond yields will rise less than they did in late 2016. Since inflation expectations will likely move up in response to more stimulative fiscal policy, real yields will rise even less than nominal yields. Over the past 18 months, US real rates have fallen a lot more in relation to rates abroad than what one would have expected based on the fairly modest depreciation in the US dollar (Chart 4). If US real rates remain entrenched deep in negative territory, while the US current account deficit widens further on the back of strong domestic demand, the dollar will continue to weaken. Chart 3Trump Victory Was Followed By Rising Interest Rates Chart 4A Relatively Muted Decline In The Dollar Given The Move In Real Yield Differentials Favor Non-US And Value Stocks Non-US stocks typically outperform their US peers when the dollar is weakening (Chart 5). This partly stems from the fact that cyclical stocks are overrepresented in stock markets outside of the United States. It also reflects the fact that cash flows denominated in say, euros or yen, are worth more in dollars if the value of the dollar declines. Chart 5A Weaker Dollar Tends To Benefit Cyclical And Non-US Stocks Financial stocks are overrepresented outside the US (Table 2). They are also overrepresented in value indices (Table 3). While a Biden administration would subject the largest US banks to additional regulatory scrutiny, the impact on their bottom lines would likely be small. US banks have been living under the shadows of the Dodd-Frank Act for over a decade. Today, banks operate more as stable utilities than as cavalier casinos. Table 2Financials Are Overrepresented In Ex-US Indexes, While Tech Dominates The US Market Table 3Financials Are Overrepresented In Value, While Tech Dominates Growth Indexes Stronger stimulus-induced growth next year will allow many banks to release some of the hefty provisions against bad loans that they built up this year, while modestly steeper yields curves will boost net interest margins. Tech stocks are overrepresented in growth indices. Better trade relations would help US tech companies, as would a weaker dollar. That said, Joe Biden’s plan to increase taxes on overseas profits would hit tech companies disproportionately hard since the tech sector derives over half its revenue from outside the United States. Stepped up antitrust enforcement and more stringent privacy rules could also weigh on tech profits. On balance, while there are many moving parts, a Democratic sweep would favor non-US equities over US equities, and value stocks over growth stocks. Trumpism Transcends Trump Chart 6Trump Targeted Socially Conservative Voters In 2016, we bucked the consensus view that Hillary Clinton would win the election. On September 30, 2016, we predicted that “Trump will win and the dollar will rally,” noting that “Trump has seen a huge (yuge?) increase in support among working-class whites. If the so-called “likely voters” backing Clinton are, in fact, less likely to turn out at the polls than those backing Trump, this could skew the final outcome in Trump's favor.”2 Right-wing populism was the $1 trillion bill lying on the sidewalk that no mainstream Republican politician seemed eager to pick up. According to the Voter Study Group, only 4% of the US electorate identified as socially liberal and fiscally conservative in 2016, compared to 29% who saw themselves as fiscally liberal and socially conservative (Chart 6). The latter group had no political home, at least until Donald Trump came along. Rather than waxing poetically about small government conservatism – as most establishment Republicans were wont to do – Trump railed against mass immigration, unfair trade deals, rising crime, never-ending wars, and what he described as out-of-control political correctness. While Trump was able to carry out parts of his protectionist agenda, most of his other actions fell well short of what he had promised. His only major legislative achievement was a massive tax cut for corporations and wealthy individuals – something that the vast majority of his base never asked for. The Rich Are Flocking To The Democratic Party How did corporations and wealthy Americans reward Trump for lowering their taxes? By shifting their allegiances towards the Democrats, that’s how. According to the Pew Research Center, households earning more than $150,000 favored Democrats by 20 percentage points during the 2018 Congressional elections, a 13-point jump from 2016. Households earning between $30,000 and $149,999 favored Democrats by only 6 points in 2018. The only other income group that strongly favored Democrats were those earning less than $30,000 per year (Table 4). Table 4Democratic Candidates Had Wide Advantages Among The Highest-And-Lowest Income Voters Chart 7Democratic Districts Have Fared Better Over The Past Decade Other data tell a similar story. Median household income in Democratic congressional districts rose by 13% between 2008 and 2017. It fell by 4% in Republican districts. Today, on average, Republican districts have a median income that is 13% below Democratic districts (Chart 7). Campaign donations have shifted towards the Democrats. The latest monthly fundraising data shows that the Biden campaign received three times more large-dollar contributions in total than the Trump campaign. The nation’s CEOs have not been immune from this transformation. Seventy-seven percent of the business leaders surveyed by the Yale School of Management on September 23 said they would be voting for Joe Biden.3 As elites desert the Republican Party, will the Democratic Party start championing lower taxes and less regulation? That seems unlikely. According to the Voter Study Group, higher-income Democrats are actually more likely to support raising taxes on families earning more than $200,000 per year than lower-income Democrats (83% versus 79%). Among Republicans, the opposite is true: 45% of lower-income Republicans are in favor of raising taxes, compared to only 23% of higher-income Republicans.4 There used to be a time when companies tried to steer clear of the political limelight. This is starting to change. As the relative purchasing power of Democratic voters has risen, many companies have become emboldened to adopt overtly political stances on a variety of hot-button social and cultural issues, even if those stances alienate many conservative customers. What does this imply for investors? If big business abandons conservative voters, conservative voters will abandon big business. Corporate America will be left with no clear backer among the two major parties. Over the long haul, this is likely to be bad news for equity investors. As such, while we are constructive on equities over the next 12 months, we see grave dangers ahead later this decade. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “Biden Takes On ‘Trump’s Tariffs’,” The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2019. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Three (New) Controversial Calls,” dated September 30, 2016. 3 “CEO Caucus Survey: Business Leaders Fault Trump Administration on COVID and China,” Yale School of Management, September 24, 2020. 4 Lee Drutman, Vanessa Williamson, Felicia Wong, “On the Money: How Americans’ Economic Views Define — and Defy — Party Lines,” votersstudygroup.org, June 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights Q3/2020 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark by +19bps during the third quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio outperformed by +10bps, led by overweights in US (+13bps), Canada (+2bps) and Italy (+4bps) that favored allocations to inflation-linked government bonds out of nominals. Spread product generated a similar-sized outperformance (+9bps), led by overweights to US investment grade corporates (+8bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We continue to prefer keeping aggregate portfolio duration close to benchmark, with only a moderate overweight allocation to spread product versus government bonds, given the lingering uncertainties over the global spread of COVID-19 and near-term US election risk. Instead, we recommend focusing on relative value allocations, favoring countries and sectors that will benefit most in our base case medium-term scenario of slowly improving global growth, reflationary global monetary/fiscal policies, low bond yield volatility and a softening US dollar. Feature As we enter the final quarter of 2020, global financial markets are dealing with many near-term uncertainties related to the upcoming US presidential election, potential next moves in global policy stimulus and, perhaps most worrying, a second wave of coronavirus infections in Europe and the US. That means the “easy money” has been made in global fixed income from the unwind of the blowout in credit spreads, and collapse of government bond yields, seen following the COVID-19 related market turbulence of February and March. Investors should expect substantially lower fixed income returns in the coming months. Relative performance between countries and sectors will be the more dominant influence on bond portfolio returns in the absence of big directional moves in yields or spreads. Alternatively put, expect alpha to win out over beta. This week we are reviewing the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the third quarter of 2020. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months. With that in mind, this week we are reviewing the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the third quarter of 2020. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months 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. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q3/2020 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Another Positive Quarter, Led By Linkers & Corporates Chart of the WeekQ3/2020 Performance: Gains From Both Sides Of The Portfolio The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the third quarter was 3.14%, modestly outperforming the custom benchmark index by +19bps (Chart of the Week).1 This is the second consecutive positive quarter, lifting the year-to-date outperformance into positive territory (+12bps) – an impressive accomplishment given the sharp drawdown that occurred during the market volatility of February and March. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +10bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +9bps. That government bond return includes a substantial gain (+17bps) from inflation-linked bonds, which we added as a new asset class in our model portfolio framework back on June 23.2 In a world of very low bond yields (Table 2), our preference for the relatively higher-yielding government bond markets in the US, Canada and Italy was an important source of outperformance, delivering a combined excess return of +19bps (including inflation-linked bonds). This was only partially offset by the negative active returns from underweights in low-yielding countries such as Germany, France, and Japan (a combined drag of -9bps). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2020 Overall Return Attribution In spread product, our overweights in US investment grade corporates (+8bps), UK investment grade corporates (+3bps) and US Agency CMBS (+4bps) were the main sources of outperformance, while the negative active return from underweighting Euro Area high yield (-2bps) was minimal. Our preference to favor higher-rated US high-yield relative to lower-rated US junk bonds, even as riskier credit rallied, did little damage to portfolio performance, with a combined excess return across all three US junk credit tiers of just -2bps. The moderate outperformance of the model bond portfolio versus the benchmark in Q3 is in line with our cautious recommended stance on what are always the largest drivers of the portfolio returns: overall duration exposure and the relative allocation between government debt and spread product. We have stuck close to benchmark exposures on both, eschewing big directional bets on bond yields or credit spreads while focusing more on relative opportunities between countries and sectors – particularly in sectors most strongly supported by central bank easing actions, like US investment grade corporates. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Long US TIPS (+12bps) Overweight US investment grade industrials (+5bps) Overweight US Agency CMBS (+4bps) Overweight UK investment grade corporates (+3bps) Overweight US high-yield Ba-rated corporates (+3bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight French government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (-4bps) Underweight US high-yield B-rated corporates (-2bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q3/2020. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and 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 Q3/2020 (red for underweight, dark 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 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio In Q3/2020 The top performing sectors within our model bond portfolio universe in Q3 were well distributed among government bonds and spread products: Italian government bonds (relative index return of +3.8), New Zealand government bonds (+3.0%), EM USD-denominated sovereign (+2.6%), US high-yield corporates (2.4%), Spanish government bonds (+2.3%), and investment grade corporates in the UK (+2%) and US (1.9%). Importantly, we were overweight or neutral all of those markets during the quarter, driven by our main investment themes of “buying what the central banks are buying” and “yield chasing.”4 On the other side, we had limited exposure to the worst performing sectors during Q3, with underweights to government bonds in Germany and Japan, US Agency MBS and euro area high-yield. Cutting our long-standing overweight on UK Gilts to neutral in early August also benefitted the portfolio performance, with Gilts being the worst performer in our model bond universe by far in Q3. Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio modestly outperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by +19bps – a positive result driven by our relative positioning that favored higher yielding government debt and spread product sectors directly supported by central bank purchases. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by relative positioning across sectors and countries, rather than big directional bets on moves in government bond yields or corporate credit spreads. This is in line with the current strategic investment recommendations of the BCA Research fixed income services. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by relative positioning across sectors and countries, rather than big directional bets on moves in government bond yields or corporate credit spreads. The overall duration of the portfolio is in line with that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 5), consistent with our strategic investment recommendation to be neutral on exposure to changes in interest rates. With central banks actively seeking to keep policy rates as low as possible until inflation returns – i.e. aiming to push real rates even lower - we expect the negative correlation seen between global inflation breakevens and real bond yields to persist over at least the next 6-12 months. Offsetting moves in both will continue to dampen the volatility of nominal bond yields, as has been the case over the past six months (Chart 6). Chart 5Overall Portfolio Duration Exposure: At Benchmark Central banks aiming for an inflation overshoot and negative real rates will also continue to boost the relative performance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal equivalents. Chart 6Within Governments, Continue Overweighting Linkers Vs Nominals We see this as a similar environment to the years following the 2008 financial crisis, with central banks keeping rates at 0% while rapidly expanding their balance sheets via quantitative easing and cheap liquidity provision for banks. The result was a multi-year period where linkers outperformed nominal government bonds (Chart 7). Thus, we are maintaining a large core allocation to linkers in the portfolio, focused on US TIPS and inflation-linked bonds in Italy and Canada. Chart 7The Strategic Case For Inflation-Linked Bond Outperformance Chart 8Overall Portfolio Allocation: Moderately Overweight Credit Vs Governments In terms of country allocations on the government bond side of the portfolio, we continue to favor overweights in higher-yielding markets with overall global yield volatility likely to remain subdued. Chart 9Global QE Continues To Support Credit Markets That means overweighting the US, Canada, Australia, Italy and Spain, while underweighting Germany, France and Japan. The UK belongs in that latter list, but we are maintaining a neutral stance on the UK, for now, given the near-term uncertainty surrounding final Brexit negotiations and the surge in new UK COVID-19 cases. Turning to spread product, we are maintaining only a moderate aggregate overweight allocation versus government bonds, equal to 4% of the portfolio (Chart 8). The same aggressive easing of global monetary policy and expansion of central bank balance sheets that is good for relative inflation-linked bond performance also benefits global corporate bonds. The annual rate of growth of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has proven to be an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 9). With the combined balance sheet now expanding at a 40% pace, corporate bonds are likely to continue to outperform government debt over the next 6-12 months. Thus, our allocation to inflation-linked bonds and corporate credit, both out of nominal government bonds, are both motivated by the same factor – monetary policy reflation. The rally in the lower-rated tiers of the high-yield corporate universe in the US and euro area looks particularly unsustainable, if corporate defaults follow the path of previous recessions in both regions. At the same time, we continue to maintain a cautious stance on allocations to countries and sectors within that overall overweight tilt towards spread product in the model bond portfolio. We prefer to stay relatively up-in-quality within global corporate debt, even with high-yield bonds in the US and Europe offering relatively high spreads using our 12-month breakeven spread metric (Chart 10).5 Chart 10US & European HY Offer Relatively Wide Breakeven Spreads Chart 11US & European HY Offer No Spread Cushion Against Rising Defaults The rally in the lower-rated tiers of the high-yield corporate universe in the US and euro area looks particularly unsustainable, if corporate defaults follow the path of previous recessions in both regions. Our measure of the default-adjusted spread, calculated by taking the option-adjusted spread of the Bloomberg Barclays high-yield index and subtracting default losses, shows that high-yield spreads on both sides of the Atlantic will be dwarfed by expected default losses over the next year, assuming a typical pattern of defaults after recessions (Chart 11). We continue to prefer staying up-in-quality within our recommended corporate allocations, favoring Ba-rated US high-yield over B-rated and Caa-rated credit while also underweighting euro area high-yield relative to euro area investment grade corporates. This strategy lowers the yield of the model portfolio, which is currently in line with that of the custom benchmark index (Chart 12), at the expense of stretching for yields in riskier credit that may not be sustainable over the medium-term. Chart 12Overall Portfolio Yield: At Benchmark Chart 13Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate At the same time, our measured stance on relative corporate exposure also acts to reduce portfolio risk – a useful outcome as we are targeting a relatively moderate tracking error (relative portfolio volatility versus that of the benchmark) within the model portfolio (Chart 13). Given the near-term uncertainties over the US elections and the potential second wave of COVID-19 in the US and Europe, staying relatively cautious on the usage of the “risk budget” of the portfolio seems prudent. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts In past quarterly reviews of our model bond portfolio, we have presented forecasts for the performance of the overall portfolio based off scenario analysis and some simple quantitative model-based predictions of various fixed income sectors. Given the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 shock, we chose to avoid such model driven forecasts based on historical coefficients and correlations that may not be applicable. As it turns out, we may have been too cautious in that decision. The “risk-factor” models that we have used to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A) - have actually done a reasonable job of predicting yield changes over the past year. This can be seen in the charts shown in the Appendix on pages 18-20. Only in the case of US Caa-rated high-yield and EM USD-denominated corporates – two sectors where we are underweight given our concerns about valuation - have yields fallen by a far greater amount than implied by our models. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Based on how the models have performed in the COVID era, we believe we can use them again to forecast the expected relative returns of the credit side of the model bond portfolio. For the government bond side, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those into changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries Chart 14Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios, based on the following descriptions and inputs (Chart 14): Base Case: The US election result is initially uncertain, but a clear winner is determined within a few days. COVID cases continue to increase, but with less severe economic restrictions than during the first wave. Global growth continues to show steady improvement. There will be some additional global fiscal stimulus, with central banks keeping foot on monetary accelerator. There is mild bear steepening of the US Treasury curve with moderate widening of US inflation breakevens. The VIX reaches 25, the USD dollar depreciates by -5%, oil prices climb 10% and the fed funds rate remains at 0%. Based on how the models have performed in the COVID era, we believe we can use them again to forecast the expected relative returns of the credit side of the model bond portfolio. Optimistic Scenario: The US election goes smoothly and a clear winner is declared on election night. The current uptick in global COVID cases does not turn into a full-blown second wave requiring severe economic restrictions. Global growth continues to steadily improve, with additional global fiscal stimulus and central banks staying highly dovish. The US Treasury curve bear steepens as US inflation expectations steadily increase. The VIX falls to 20, the USD dollar depreciates by -7%, oil prices climb 20%, and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis Chart 15US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Pessimistic Scenario: There is a contested US election result taking weeks to resolve, leading to major US social unrest. A full-blown second COVID-19 wave hits the world and severe economic restrictions are implemented. Governments become more worried about debt/deficits and deliver underwhelming stimulus. Central banks do not provide enough additional stimulus to offset the shocks. The US Treasury curve bull-flattens as US inflation breakevens plunge. The VIX soars to 35, the USD dollar rise by 5%, oil prices fall -20%, while the fed funds rate remains at 0%. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B and Chart 15). The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver an excess return over the next six months of +17bps in the base case and +27bps in the optimistic scenario, but is only projected to underperform by -1bp in the pessimistic scenario. Bottom Line: We continue to prefer keeping aggregate portfolio duration close to benchmark, with only a moderate overweight allocation to spread product versus government bonds, given the lingering uncertainties over the global spread of COVID-19 and near-term US election risk. Instead, we recommend focusing on relative value allocations, favoring countries and sectors that will benefit most in our base case medium-term scenario of slowly improving global growth, reflationary global monetary/fiscal policies, low bond yield volatility and a softening US dollar. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 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. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Revival Of lobal Inflation Expectations", dated June 23 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q3/2020 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "We’re All Yield Chasers Now", dated August 11, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 The 12-month breakeven spread measures the amount of spread widening that must take place for a credit product to have the same return over a one-year horizon as a duration-matched position in government bonds. We compare those breakeven spreads to their own history in a percentile ranking to determine the relative attractiveness of a credit product strictly from a spread and spread volatility perspective. Appen dix Appendix Chart 1US Investment Grade Sectors Appendix Chart 2US High-Yield Credit Tiers Appendix Chart 3US MBS & CMBS Appendix Chart 4Euro Area And UK Credit Appendix Chart 5Emerging Markets USD-Denominated Debt 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 Chart 1Spending Held Up In August The bulk of the CARES act’s income support provisions expired at the end of July and Congress has still not reached consensus on a follow-up package. Unsurprisingly, consumer spending responded by growing much more slowly in August, but at least so far, absolute calamity has been avoided (Chart 1). The failure of consumer spending to collapse has caused some, like St. Louis Fed President Jim Bullard, to question whether more stimulus is even necessary.1 We are less optimistic. The most recent personal income report shows that households still received $867 billion (annualized) of CARES act stimulus in August and the recovery in consumer confidence has been tepid at best (see page 12), suggesting that the savings rate will not drop quickly. We expect Congress to ultimately deliver more fiscal support, which will lead to a bear-steepening Treasury curve and spread product outperformance on a 6-12 month horizon. But continued brinkmanship warrants a more cautious near-term stance. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -394 bps. Last month’s sell-off caused some value to return to the sector. The overall index’s 12-month breakeven spread is back up to its 31st percentile since 1995 and the equivalent Baa spread is at its 38th percentile (Chart 2). Both levels appear somewhat expensive at first blush. However, considering the strong tailwinds from the Fed’s extraordinarily accommodative interest rate policy and emergency lending facilities, we see a lot of room for further spread tightening. Corporate bond issuance was up in August, but nowhere near the extreme levels seen in the spring (panel 4). The fact that the Financing Gap – the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings – turned negative in the second quarter suggests that firms have sufficient cash to cover their investment needs, and that further debt issuance is unnecessary (bottom panel). At the sector level, we continue to recommend overweight allocations to subordinate bank bonds,2 Healthcare and Energy bonds.3 We also advise underweight allocations to Technology4 and Pharmaceutical bonds.5 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 107 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -455 bps. Oddly, Ba-rated was the worst performing credit tier on the month and the lowest-rated (Caa & below) credits actually beat the Treasury benchmark by 42 bps. As we wrote last week, this suggests that there remains scope for low-rated junk to sell off in the event of a shock to economic growth expectations.6 Such a development could arise if Congress fails to pass a new stimulus bill. In terms of value, if we assume a 25% recovery rate on defaulted debt and a minimum required spread of 150 bps in excess of default losses, then the High-Yield index is priced for a default rate of 4.8% during the next 12 months (Chart 3). Such a large drop in the default rate would necessitate a rapid economic recovery and we are not yet confident that such a recovery can be achieved. Job Cut Announcements – a variable that correlates tightly with the default rate – ticked higher in September and they remain well above pre-COVID levels (bottom panel). At the sector level, we advise overweight allocations to high-yield Technology7 and Energy bonds.8 We are underweight the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical sectors.9 MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -51 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS index option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened 4 bps on the month, and it continues to trade at a premium compared to other similarly risky sectors. The MBS index OAS is currently 80 bps. This compares to an OAS of 79 bps for Aa-rated corporate bonds, 66 bps for Agency CMBS and 30 bps for Aaa-rated consumer ABS. Despite the OAS advantage, we are concerned that the elevated primary mortgage spread is a warning that refinancing risk could flare during the next few months (Chart 4). Even if Treasury yields are unchanged, a further 50 bps drop in the mortgage rate due to spread compression cannot be ruled out. Such a move would lead to a significant increase in prepayment losses. With that in mind, we are concerned about the low level of expected prepayment losses (option cost) priced into the MBS index (panel 3). A fourth quarter refi wave would undoubtedly send that option cost higher, eating into the returns implied by the OAS. The recent spike in the mortgage delinquency rate does not pose a near-term risk to spreads as it is being driven by households that have been granted forbearance from the federal government (panel 4). The risk for MBS holders only comes into play if many households are unable to resume their regular mortgage payments when the forbearance period expires early next year. But even in that case, further government intervention to either support household incomes or extend the forbearance period would mitigate the risk. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 18 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -313 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 99 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -562 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 13 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -706 bps. Local Authority debt underperformed Treasuries by 4 bps in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -341 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 15 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -39 bps. Supranationals underperformed by 3 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -12 bps. US dollar weakness is usually a boon for Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign and Foreign Agency returns. However, most of this year’s dollar depreciation has occurred against other Developed Market currencies, not EMs (Chart 5). Added to that, dollar weakness against all trading partners helps US corporate sector profits, and Baa-rated corporate bonds continue to offer a spread pick-up versus EM Sovereigns (panel 4). We looked at EM Sovereign valuation on a country-by-country basis two weeks ago and concluded that Mexican and Russian Sovereigns offer the most compelling risk/reward trade-offs relative to the US corporate sector.10 Of those two countries, Mexican debt offers the best opportunity as the peso is on an appreciating trend versus the dollar. The Russian Ruble has been depreciating versus the dollar, and is vulnerable in the case of a Democratic sweep in November. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 12 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -503 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Short-dated municipal bond spreads versus Treasuries were stable in September, but long-maturity spreads widened. The entire Aaa muni curve remains above the Treasury curve, despite municipal debt’s tax-exempt status (Chart 6). Municipal bonds also remain attractively priced relative to corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum. Aaa munis offer more after-tax yield than Aaa corporates for investors facing an effective tax rate above 15%. The breakeven effective tax rates for Aa, A and Baa-rated munis are 11%, 13% and 17%, respectively. Extremely attractive valuation causes us to stick with our municipal bond overweight, even as state and local governments face a credit crunch. State & local government payrolls shrank in September and, without federal support, cutbacks will no doubt continue (bottom panel). However, we expect that the combination of austerity measures and all-time high State Rainy Day Fund balances will be sufficient to prevent a wave of municipal ratings downgrades. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened somewhat in September, though even the 30-year yield only fell 3 bps on the month. The 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes flattened 2 bps and 3 bps, reaching 56 bps and 118 bps, respectively. One easy way to think about nominal Treasury yields is as the market’s expectation of future changes in the fed funds rate.11 With that in mind, the Fed’s recent shift toward a regime of average inflation targeting will likely lead to nominal yield curve steepening on a 6-12 month horizon. That is, the Fed will keep a firm grip on the front-end of the curve but long-maturity yields will rise as investors price-in eventual Fed tightening in response to higher inflation. We recommend positioning for this outcome by owning the 5-year Treasury note and shorting a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position is designed to profit from 2/10 curve steepening. We expect the economic recovery to be maintained over the next 6-12 months, allowing this steepening to play out. However, we also see near-term risks related to the passage of a follow-up stimulus bill. Those not already invested in steepeners are advised to wait until a deal is struck. Valuation is a concern with our recommended curve steepener, as the 5-year yield is below the yield on the duration-matched 2/10 barbell (Chart 7). However, the 5-year yield looked much more expensive during the last zero-lower-bound period between 2010 and 2013 (bottom 2 panels). We anticipate a return to similar valuation levels. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 54 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -130 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates fell 18 bps and 16 bps on the month. They currently sit at 1.65% and 1.83%, respectively. Core CPI printed a strong +0.4% in August and the large divergence between core and trimmed mean inflation measures leads us to conclude that inflation will continue to rise quickly during the next few months (Chart 8). For this reason, we recommend maintaining an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, even though the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is no longer cheap according to our Adaptive Expectations Model (panel 2).12 We could see inflation pressures moderating once core and trimmed mean inflation measures re-converge.13 This could give us an opportunity to reduce our exposure to TIPS sometime later this year. We also recommend holding real yield curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners. With the Fed now officially targeting an overshoot of its 2% inflation goal, we would expect the cost of 2-year inflation protection to rise above the cost of 10-year inflation protection (panel 4). With the Fed also exerting more control over short-dated nominal yields than over long-term ones, this means that short-maturity real yields will come under downward pressure relative to the long end (bottom panel). ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +63 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 7 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +53 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 32 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +128 bps. Aaa ABS are a high conviction overweight, given that spreads remain elevated compared to historical levels and that the sector benefits from Fed support through the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF). However, spreads are even more attractive in non-Aaa ABS (Chart 9) and we recommend owning those securities as well. This is despite the fact that only Aaa-rated bonds are eligible for TALF. We explained our rationale for owning non-Aaa consumer ABS in a June report.14 We noted that stimulus received from the CARES act caused disposable income to increase significantly between February and July. Then, faced with fewer spending opportunities, households used much of that windfall to pay down consumer debt (panel 4). Granted, further income support from fiscal policymakers is needed now that the CARES act’s enhanced unemployment benefits have expired. But given the substantial boost to savings that has already occurred, we are confident that more stimulus will arrive in time to prevent a wave of consumer bankruptcies. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 63 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -259 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 46 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -63 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 119 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -803 bps (Chart 10). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa Non-Agency CMBS and an underweight allocation to Non-Aaa CMBS. Our reasoning is simple. Aaa CMBS are eligible for TALF, meaning that spreads can still tighten even as the hardship in commercial real estate continues. Without Fed support, Non-Aaa CMBS will struggle to deal with a climbing delinquency rate (panel 3).15 Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in September, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -12 bps. The average index spread widened 2 bps on the month to 68 bps, well above typical historical levels (bottom panel). The Fed is supporting the Agency CMBS market by directly purchasing the securities as part of its Agency MBS purchase program. The combination of strong Fed support and elevated spreads makes the sector a high conviction overweight. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of October 2nd, 2020) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of October 2nd, 2020) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 63 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 63 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of October 2nd, 2020) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-30/fed-s-bullard-says-debate-on-fiscal-aid-can-be-delayed-to-2021?sref=Ij5V3tFi 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Case Against The Money Supply”, dated June 30, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Out Of Bullets”, dated September 29, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020 and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 2: Buy The Dip In High-Yield Energy”, dated July 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Trading Bonds In A Dollar Bear Market”, dated September 22, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 For more details on this forecasting framework please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 13 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 14 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 15 For a deeper dive into the outlook for US commercial real estate please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Working From Home, Urban Flight, And Commercial Real Estate Loans: How Bad Can Things Get?”, dated August 28, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation
Highlights Near-Term Uncertainties: Investors have grown a bit more nervous in recent weeks, amid signs of a second wave of the coronavirus in Europe and with the contentious US presidential election only five weeks away. The pro-growth cyclical investment backdrop, however, remains unchanged. From a strategic perspective (6-12 months), maintain an overall neutral stance on interest rate duration, with a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government bonds while staying up in quality. EM USD-Denominated Debt: The main drivers of the emerging market hard currency debt rally since March – a weakening US dollar, improving global growth momentum, and massively accommodative global monetary policies – remain in place. Valuations, however, appear more attractive for EM USD-denominated corporates relative to USD-denominated sovereigns. Favor the former over the latter, within an overall neutral strategic allocation to EM hard currency debt. Feature Chart of the WeekMarkets Starting To Get Cautious As the third quarter of 2020 draws to a close, investors have developed a slight case of the jitters about the near-term outlook for global financial markets. The positives that drove risk assets higher during the spring and summer - rebounding global economic activity, fueled by aggressive policy stimulus and a slowing of the spread of COVID-19, along with a weaker US dollar – have given way to some fresh uncertainties. Economic data releases have started to disappoint versus expectations, the rapid expansion of central bank balance sheets in the major developed economies has temporarily stalled, a second wave of new COVID-19 cases appears to have started in Europe and the US, and the US dollar has strengthened by 2.7% from the 2020 lows (Chart of the Week). Risk assets have pulled back in response, with the MSCI World equity index down -6.1% from the 2020 peak and US high-yield corporate credit spreads 66bps wider from recent lows. So far, these moves appear more a correction of overbought markets, rather than a change in trend. From the perspective of our strategic (6-12 months) investment recommendations, we remain generally positive on risk assets. Within global fixed income, that means maintaining a modest overall overweight stance on spread products versus government bonds, while focusing more on relative opportunities between countries and sectors to generate alpha. A Quick Assessment Of The Cyclical Backdrop The recent in increase in market volatility has started to shake out crowded positioning in popular winning trades. For example, high-flying US tech stocks have seen deeper pullbacks than the overall US equity market, while investors yanked nearly $5 billion from US junk bond funds in the week ending last Wednesday according to the Financial Times – the highest such outflow since the apex of the COVID-19 market rout in mid-March. We prefer to judge the health of a market rally by assessing the state of macroeconomic fundamentals underpinning that particular asset class Mainstream financial pundits often dub such corrections of overheated markets as a “healthy” way to ensure the continuation of medium-term bullish trends. We prefer to judge the health of a market rally by assessing the state of macroeconomic fundamentals underpinning that particular asset class – the most important of which remain positive for risk assets, in general, and global fixed income spread products, in particular. Economic Data Chart 2Economic Data Is Mostly Optimistic While data surprise indices like the widely followed Citigroup series are topping out, this is more because of an improvement in beaten-up growth expectations, rather than a sharp decline in the actual data. The global ZEW economic expectations survey continues to point in an optimistic direction, while other reliable measures of business confidence like the German IFO and the US NFIB small business surveys have also continued to improve in recent months. Our own global leading economic indicator (LEI) is firming, with a majority of countries seeing a rising LEI (Chart 2). At the same time, the preliminary release of manufacturing PMI data for September showed continued improvements in the US and Europe. While the news is not 100% upbeat – the services PMI for the overall euro area fell -2.9 points in September, possibly due to the increase in new reported cases of COVID-19 in Europe – the tone of global economic data remains consistent with improving cyclical momentum. The US Dollar Chart 3Growth And Yield Differentials Signalling Dollar Weakness The most likely medium-term path of least resistance for the US dollar remains downward. Economic growth remains stronger outside the US, based on the differential between the US and non-US manufacturing PMI data – an indicator that our currency strategists follow closely given its strong correlation to US dollar momentum (Chart 3). Relative interest rate differentials also remain less positive for the US dollar, with the decline in real US bond yields seen in 2020 pointing to additional medium-term dollar depreciation (bottom panel). US Politics The US general election is now only 35 days away, with the latest polling data showing President Trump closing the lead on the Democratic Party candidate, Joe Biden. Our colleagues at BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy remain of the view that a Biden victory is the more probable outcome, given the more difficult time Trump will have in winning all the key swing states that gave him his narrow election victory in 2016. Chart 4A "Blue Sweep" Is Bearish For Markets The recent peak in US equity markets, and trough in the VIX index, coincided with improving odds of a Democratic Party sweep of the White House, House of Representatives and Senate (Chart 4). Such an outcome would give a President Biden the power, and perceived mandate, to implement many of the more progressive elements of the Democratic Party agenda – including a hike in corporate tax rates that could damage equity market sentiment. Our political strategists think that a “Blue Sweep” would only occur if the Republican Party fails to agree with the Democrats on a new fiscal stimulus bill.1 Both sides are playing hardball in the current negotiations, which is keeping investors on edge given how much of the US economy still requires fiscal support because of the pandemic. The Republicans will not want to take the blame for a failure to reach a stimulus deal, which would likely hand the Democrats the keys to the White House and Congress. Thus, a fiscal deal of sufficient size to calm jittery markets – most likely in the $2-2.5 trillion range sought by the Democrats – should be announced within the next couple of weeks before the final run up to the election. Financial/Monetary Conditions It will take more than a corrective pullback in equity and credit markets to threaten the economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession, given how highly stimulative financial conditions have become since the spring (Chart 5). In more normal times, booming equity and credit markets would eventually lead to upward pressure on government bond yields, since all would be reflecting improving economic growth and, eventually, expectations of faster inflation and tighter monetary policy. That move higher in yields would eventually act to restrain growth and depress the value of growth-sensitive risk assets. Chart 5Financial Conditions Remain Supportive For Growth As we discussed in last week’s report, government bond yields are now likely to stay very low for a period measured in years, with major central banks like the US Federal Reserve leaning dovishly to support growth during the pandemic and trigger a temporary overshoot of inflation expectations.2 Thus, loose monetary settings (including more quantitative easing) will remain a critical underpinning for keeping risk assets well supported, by eliminating the typical cyclical threat from rising bond yields. Summing it all up, the fundamental economic and political backdrop remains cyclically bullish for risk assets, despite recent investor nervousness. Of course, a major wild card could be that the latest surge in new COVID-19 cases becomes large enough to trigger renewed economic restrictions in the US or Europe. Yet any such moves would likely not be as severe as those that occurred back in the spring, given the much lower mortality rates seen during the current upturn in COVID-19 cases, which is reducing the public’s willingness to accept more economy-crushing lockdowns. Bottom Line: Investors have grown a bit more nervous in recent weeks, amid signs of a second wave of the coronavirus in Europe and with the contentious US presidential election only five weeks away. The pro-growth cyclical investment backdrop, however, remains unchanged. From a strategic perspective (6-12 months), maintain an overall neutral stance on interest rate duration, with a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government bonds while staying up in quality. EM USD-Denominated Credit: Focus On Corporates Relative To Sovereigns Chart 6An Overview of USD-Denominated EM Debt Back in July of this year, we turned more positive on emerging market (EM) USD-denominated spread product, upgrading our recommended allocation to both EM USD sovereign and corporate debt to neutral from underweight in our model bond portfolio.3 The change was motivated by signs of rebounding global economic growth after the COVID-19 lockdowns and a loss of upward momentum in the US dollar, coming at a time when EM spreads still looked relatively cheap (wide) compared to developed market corporate debt. An underweight stance was inconsistent with that backdrop. EM credit has done well since our upgrade (Chart 6). Using Bloomberg Barclays index data, the yield on the EM USD-denominated sovereign index has fallen from 5.2% to 4.4%, while the option-adjusted spread (OAS) on that same index tightened from 447bps to 368bps. It has been a similar story for EM USD-denominated corporates, with the index yield falling from 4.1% to 3.9% and the index OAS narrowing from 361bps to 344bps.4 Given the close correlations typically exhibited between EM USD sovereign and corporate yields and spreads, we have tended to change our recommended allocations to both asset classes at the same time and in the same direction. Yet the EM credit universe is quite diverse, incorporating many different issuers of highly varying credit quality and risk (Table 1). Treating the allocations to EM USD sovereign debt and USD corporate debt separately may reveal more profitable relative return opportunities. The fundamental economic and political backdrop remains cyclically bullish for risk assets, despite recent investor nervousness. Table 1Details Of The USD-Denominated EM Sovereign And EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign Indices A first step to analyzing the EM USD sovereigns versus corporates investment decision is to develop a list of macro factors that correlate to the relative performance of EM sovereign and corporate credit. From there, we can build a list of directional indicators that can help inform that sovereign versus corporates decision. Treating the allocations to EM USD sovereign debt and USD corporate debt separately may reveal more profitable relative return opportunities. Our colleagues at BCA Research Emerging Markets Strategy have long held the view that overall EM debt performance is mostly driven by just two important macro factors: industrial commodity prices and the US dollar. Specifically, they have shown that the broad cyclical swings in EM sovereign and corporate spreads correlate strongly to the price momentum of a simple blend of industrial metal and oil prices, as well as the price momentum of a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar (Chart 7). Chart 7EM Credit Spreads: A Commodity And Currency Story On that basis, the recent moderate widening of EM credit spreads is justified by the corrective pullback in industrial commodity prices and a bit of US dollar strength – trends that our EM strategists believe can continue in the near-term. Although they share our view that the medium-term trend in the US dollar is still bearish, thus any near-term EM debt selloff will represent a longer-term buying opportunity.5 The demand for industrial commodities remains largely driven by economic trends in the world’s largest commodity consumer, China. Thus, our China credit impulse (the change in overall Chinese credit relative to GDP), which leads Chinese economic activity, is a good leading indicator of industrial commodity prices. We will use the China credit impulse in our list of directional indicators to forecast EM sovereign versus corporate performance. We also will include the annual rate of change of the index of EM currencies versus the US dollar (shown in Chart 7). We also believe that a global monetary policy variable should be included in our indicator list, particularly in the current environment of super-low developed market interest rates and central bank purchase of government bonds – both of which tend to drive yield-starved investors into higher-yielding EM assets and, potentially, can influence the relative performance of EM sovereigns and corporates. To capture the global monetary policy trend in our indicator list, we use the combined annual growth rate of the balance sheets of the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England. The message from our indicator list is that EM USD corporates should outperform EM USD sovereign debt over the next 6-12 months. In Charts 8 & 9, we show the relative total return of the Bloomberg Barclays EM USD corporate and USD sovereign indices, expressed in year-over-year percentage terms, versus our list of three potential directional indicators of the relative total return. We have broken up the overall EM universe by broad credit quality, with index data used for investment grade issuers in Chart 8 and below investment grade (high-yield) issuers in Chart 9. For all three of our directional indicators, we have pushed them forward in the charts to look for a potential leading relationship to the relative returns. Chart 8EM Investment Grade Corporates Looking Set to Outperform ... Chart 9... But The High Yield Space Tells A More Mixed Story The charts show that China credit impulse leads the relative total returns of EM USD corporates versus EM USD sovereigns by between 9-18 months for investment grade and high-yield EM credit. The growth of the major central bank balance sheets also leads the relative performance of EM USD corporates versus EM USD sovereigns by one full year, both for investment grade and high-yield EM credit. Finally, the annual growth of EM currencies leads the relative return of EM USD corporates versus sovereigns by around nine months, although the correlation is the weakest of the three indicators in our list. In terms of current investment strategy, the message from our indicator list is that EM USD corporates should outperform EM USD sovereign debt over the next 6-12 months, both for investment grade and high-yield, largely due to aggressive credit stimulus in China and the rapid expansion of central bank balance sheets. In terms of the attractiveness of EM USD-denominated yields in a global fixed income portfolio, however, there is a difference between higher-rated and lower-rated EM debt. In Chart 10, we present a scatter chart that plots the yields on various global fixed income sectors, all hedged into US dollars and compared to trailing yield volatility, versus the average credit rating of each sector. Investment grade EM USD corporate and sovereign issuers offer relatively more attractive yields compared to other sectors with similar credit ratings, like investment grade corporates in the US and Europe. The same cannot be said for high-yield EM USD corporates and sovereigns, which only offer a more attractive volatility-adjusted yield compared to euro area high-yield corporates among the lower-rated global credit sectors. Chart 10EM USD-Denominated High Yield Debt Not Especially Attractive On A Risk-Adjusted Basis Based on this analysis, we are making the following changes in our model bond portfolio on page 14: Upgrading EM USD corporates to overweight Downgrading EM USD sovereigns to underweight Keeping the combined EM USD credit allocation at neutral. This fits with our current overall investment theme of keeping overall spread product exposure relative close to benchmark, while taking more active risks on relative allocations between fixed income sectors. Bottom Line: The main drivers of the emerging market hard currency debt rally since March – a weakening US dollar, improving global growth momentum, and massively accommodative global monetary policies – remain in place. Valuations, however, appear more attractive for EM USD-denominated corporates relative to USD-denominated sovereigns. Favor the former over the latter, within an overall neutral strategic allocation to EM hard currency debt. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Stimulus Will Come … But May Not Save Trump", dated September 25, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "What Would It Take To Get Bond Yields To Rise Again?", dated September 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2020 Performance Review & Current Allocations: Selective Optimism", dated July 14, 2020, available at gfis.bcaraesearch.com. 4 Note that the index data we are using here includes both EM corporate and so-called “quasi-sovereign” debt, the latter being bonds issued by EM companies that are majority-owned by their local governments. 5 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "A Reset In The Making", dated September 24, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns