Developed Countries

Highlights Monetary Policy: Central bankers worldwide are promising to keeping policy rates near 0% for at least the next two years, even if inflation begins to rise again. This is an obvious form of forward guidance designed to keep borrowing costs as low as possible until the COVID-19 pandemic ends. It may also be the start of a true shift in policymaker strategy, tolerating a rise in inflation just as many of the secular forces that have dampened global inflation are fading. Bond Strategy: The recent divergence of inflation expectations and real bond yields can persist if central banks commit to their dovish forward guidance. Stay overweight inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt, particularly in the US, Canada and Italy. Feature “We’re not thinking about raising rates. We’re not even thinking about thinking about raising rates.” – Fed Chairman Jerome Powell Central bankers have emptied their bags of tricks in recent months, providing extreme monetary policy accommodation to fight the deflationary impacts of the COVID-19 recession. 0% policy interest rates, large-scale asset purchases and liquidity support programs have all been implemented in some form by the major developed market central banks. Even more extreme options like yield curve control have been contemplated in the US and implemented in Australia. Perhaps the most important tool used by policymakers, however, is the most simple of all – dovish forward guidance on future interest rate moves. The Fed, European Central Bank (ECB), Bank of Japan (BoJ) and others are now committing to keep rates at current levels for at least the next two years. Additional “state-based” guidance, tying future rate hikes only to a sustainable return of inflation back to policymaker targets, is the likely next step, with the Bank of Canada already making that connection at last week’s policy meeting. Given how difficult it has been for central banks to reach those targets, policy rates can now potentially stay lower for much longer. Interest rate markets have already discounted such an outcome, with overnight index swap (OIS) curves pricing in no change in policy rates in the US, Europe, UK, Japan, Canada or Australia until at least mid-2022 and only very mild increases afterward (Chart of the Week). It remains to be seen if policymakers will actually follow through on their promises to sit on their hands and do nothing for that long, even as global growth and inflation continue what will likely be an extended and choppy recovery from the deep COVID-19 recession. Chart of the WeekAggressive Forward Guidance Is Working However, if central bankers are truly serious about keeping interest rates low even if inflation picks up, in an attempt to “catch up” from previous undershoots of inflation targets, that has major implications for global bond investors – in particular, raising the value of maintaining core holdings of inflation-linked bonds in fixed-income portfolios. The First Step To Higher Inflation: Stop Talking About Rate Hikes Central bankers are increasingly using the same arguments, and even the same language, to justify their current hyper-accommodative policy stance. Here are some examples, taken from speeches and policy meetings that took place last week: ECB President Christine Lagarde: “We expect interest rates to remain at their present or lower levels until we have seen the inflation outlook robustly converge to a level sufficiently close to, but below, 2% within our projection horizon and such convergence has been consistently reflected in underlying inflation dynamics.” Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard: “Looking ahead, it likely will be appropriate to shift the focus of monetary policy from stabilization to accommodation by supporting a full recovery in employment and a sustained return of inflation to its 2 percent objective […] policy should not preemptively withdraw support based on a historically steeper Phillips curve that is not currently in evidence.” Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem: "As the economy moves from reopening to recuperation, it will continue to require extraordinary monetary policy support. The Governing Council will hold the policy interest rate at the effective lower bound until economic slack is absorbed so that the 2 percent inflation target is sustainably achieved.” Chart 2Global Growth Expectations Have Rebounded We could have switched the names on those three quotes and the message would be the same. Policy rates will stay at current levels until inflation has sustainably returned to the 2% target. Raising rates on the back of a forecast of higher inflation, driven by an expectation of lower unemployment, will not be enough this time for policymakers that have been repeatedly burned by their belief in the Phillips Curve. Bond investors have taken note of the central bankers’ message and now expect both stable policy rates and higher inflation expectations. The latest data from the ZEW survey of economic and financial market sentiment, that was published last week and covers the period to mid-July, shows this shift in expectations. On the economy, the current conditions indices for the euro area, US, UK and Japan have stopped falling, while the expectations data have all soared to the highest levels seen since 2015 (Chart 2). The ZEW also poses questions on expectations for interest rates and inflation, and there the answers are more interesting for bond investors. The net balances on expectations for long-term interest rates have bottomed out for the US, euro area and UK, as have expectations for inflation over the next twelve months (Chart 3). At the same time, expectations for short-term interest rates have lagged the moves seen in the other two series, with the net balances hovering around zero for all four countries. One possible interpretation of this data is that a greater number of the financial professionals who take part in the ZEW survey are starting to “get the hint” about central bankers’ dovish messages, expecting higher inflation and bond yields but with no change in short-term policy rates. Bond investors have taken note of the central bankers’ message and now expect both stable policy rates and higher inflation expectations. We see similar pricing in inflation-linked bond markets. While nominal bond yields have stayed stable, the mix between inflation expectations and real bond yields has shifted. Breakevens on 10-year bonds have been slowly climbing across the major developed markets since the end of March, while real yields have fallen roughly the same amount as breakevens have widened (Chart 4). Chart 3Global Inflation Expectations Are Drifting Higher Chart 4Inflation Breakevens & Real Yields: Mirror Images This is a relatively unusual development in the global inflation-linked bond universe. More often, breakevens and real yields move in the same direction. Inflation expectations tend to rise when economic growth is improving, which also puts upward pressure on real bond yields – often in tandem with markets pricing in higher policy rates at the short end of yield curves. That is not the case today. The latest fall in real bond yields may simply be markets pricing in slower potential economic growth, and lower equilibrium real interest rates, in a world where the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to leave lasting scars. That would be consistent with Bloomberg growth and inflation forecasts for the major developed economies, which expect unemployment rates to remain above pre-COVID levels in 2022, with inflation rates struggling to reach 2% (Chart 5). Chart 5The Consensus Expects A Slow Global Recovery In a recent report, we presented some basic Taylor Rule estimates of the “appropriate” level of policy rates for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and Australia after the collapse in growth seen in response to the COVID-19 lockdowns. We used the most basic formulation of the Taylor Rule that put equal weight on deviations of headline inflation from central bank target levels, and deviations of unemployment from full-employment NAIRU measures. Chart 6Taylor Rules Suggest Rates Will Need To Head Higher Given the surge in unemployment and collapse in inflation due to the COVID-19 recession, Taylor Rule estimates were calling for negative nominal interest rates across the developed economies (Chart 6). The estimates were most severe in the US, where a fed funds rate of -3.8% is deemed “appropriate” with an unemployment rate of 11% and headline CPI inflation at 0.6%. When the Bloomberg consensus forecasts for the next two years are put into the Taylor Rule, a rising path for interest rates is projected but with rates remaining below pre-COVID levels. However, if policymakers stick to their current pledge to keep rates on hold for longer to ensure that inflation not only returns to 2%, but also stays there without the help from very easy monetary policy, then the implication is that a “below-appropriate” interest rate will be maintained for an extended period. Interest rate markets have already come to that conclusion. 5-year OIS rates, 5-years forward are trading between 0% and 1% across the developed economies – levels that are below the neutral interest rate estimates we are using in our Taylor Rule forecasts (Chart 7). Chart 7Markets Priced For An Extended Period Of Below-Neutral Rates With interest rates already at or near the zero bound, any rise in inflation from current levels also near 0% will result in real policy rates turning negative if central banks do nothing. This would be consistent with the messages sent by the ZEW survey, and global inflation linked bond markets where real yields are falling deeper into negative territory. That would be a major shift of global policymaker behavior, designed as a planned erosion of inflation-fighting credibility. This is especially true for the likes of the Fed, which has a well-established history of turning hawkish at the first sign of rising inflation pressures. The Fed has already hinted that it is considering shifting its policy strategy to allow overshoots of inflation after periods of undershooting the 2% target. Other central banks, like the ECB, have announced similar reviews of their inflation targets and strategy. Such a move to tolerate higher levels of inflation is a logical response to a global pandemic and deep global recession, coming on the heels of several years of low inflation. The timing may actually be ideal to run more dovish policies to boost inflation, with many of the structural factors that have helped restrain global inflation starting to turn in a more inflationary direction. That would be a major shift of global policymaker behavior, designed as a planned erosion of inflation-fighting credibility.  Bottom Line: Central bankers worldwide are promising to keep policy rates near 0% for at least the next two years, even if inflation begins to rise again. This is an obvious form of forward guidance designed to keep borrowing costs as low as possible until the COVID-19 pandemic ends. It may also be the start of a true shift in policymaker strategy, becoming more tolerant of faster inflation. Potential Reasons Why Inflation Could Return Central bankers are talking a good game right now, pledging not to turn too hawkish, too soon and allowing inflation to move back above policy targets. It remains to be seen if they would actually follow through and do nothing if realized inflation rates were to start climbing back to 2% or even higher. It is unlikely that policymakers will be facing that choice anytime soon. The COVID-19 pandemic is showing no signs of slowing in the US and large emerging market countries, global growth remains fragile and heavily reliant on monetary and fiscal policy support, and inflation rates worldwide are currently closer to 0% than 2%. Yet at the same time, there are structural disinflationary forces now changing in a way that may create a more inflationary world after the threat of the pandemic has faded. Demographics Chart 8Demographics Have Turned Less Disinflationary BCA Research Global Investment Strategy has noted that the global demographic trends that helped restrain inflation in recent decades are shifting.1 The ratio of the number of global workers to the number of global consumers – the global support ratio - peaked back in 2013 and is now steadily falling (Chart 8). There are structural disinflationary forces now changing in a way that may create a more inflationary world after the threat of the pandemic has faded. A rising support ratio implies there are more people producing through work than consuming which, on the margin, is disinflationary. Now, with baby boomers leaving the labor force in droves and becoming consumers in retirement (especially consuming services like health care), the support ratio is falling and becoming a potentially more inflationary force. Globalization Chart 9Globalization Has Turned Less Disinflationary One of the biggest disinflationary forces of the past quarter-century has been the rapid increase in global trade. As trade barriers fell and global supply chains expanded, companies were able to lower their costs of production. This allowed companies to widen profit margins without resorting to large price increases, helping to dampen overall inflation rates. Now, with global populism and protectionism on the rise, trade as a share of global GDP is declining (Chart 9). The COVID-19 pandemic will likely exacerbate this trend as more companies bring production closer to home, reversing the disinflationary impact of global supply chains, on the margin. A Strong US Dollar The relentless rise of the US dollar in recent years has exerted a major disinflationary headwind to the world economy, with a large share of global traded goods and commodities priced in dollars. Now, with the greenback finally showing signs of rolling over on a more sustainable basis (Chart 10), fueled by less favorable interest rate differentials and signs of improving global growth, the dollar is slowly becoming a more inflationary force. Chart 10USD Weakness Would Be Inflationary Chart 11Structural Reasons Why Policy Rates Need To Stay Low Of course, these factors are slow moving and will not necessarily result in an immediate increase in global inflation. Yet the trends now in place are more inflationary, on the margin, than has been the case for many years. Coming at a time when global productivity growth is anemic, the potential for an inflationary spark from overly easy monetary policies should not be ignored. Especially given the very high levels of private and public debt in the developed world, which puts more pressure on policymakers to choose inflation as a way to reduce debt burdens (Chart 11).   Investment Implication – Stay Overweight Inflation-Linked Bonds Central bankers are now signaling a desire to keep interest rates lower for longer, both to provide stimulus for virus-stricken economies and to boost weak inflation. Coming at a time when secular disinflationary forces are losing potency, this raises the risk of a protracted period of negative real policy rates as inflation rises and policymakers do little to stop it pre-emptively. Against this shifting backdrop, the value of owning global inflation-linked bonds as core holdings in fixed income portfolios is compelling. Chart 12Maintain A Core Overweight In Inflation-Linked Bonds Against this shifting backdrop, the value of owning global inflation-linked bonds as core holdings in fixed income portfolios is compelling. Inflation breakevens are more likely to creep upward than soar higher in the near term given the lingering economic threat from the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet inflation-linked bonds are likely to outperform nominal government debt over the next few years – if central bankers stay true to their word and keep rates unchanged while welcoming a pickup in inflation. The experience of the years following the 2008 financial crisis, when global policy rates were kept near 0% and central banks expanded balance sheets through quantitative easing, may be a template to follow. Global inflation linked bonds, as an asset class, steadily outperformed nominal government bonds from 2012-2016, shown in Chart 12 on a rolling 3-year annualized basis using benchmark indices from Bloomberg Barclays. A similar extended period of outperformance is not out of the question over the next few years, with central banks ramping up asset purchases once again and promising to keep policy easy until inflation returns. Bottom Line: The recent divergence of inflation expectations and real bond yields can persist if central banks commit to their dovish forward guidance. Stay overweight inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt, particularly in the US, Canada and Italy where our models show that breakevens are most undervalued.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy "Third Quarter 2020 Strategy Outlook, Navigating The Second Wave", dated June 30, 2020, available at gis.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

Earnings season is in full swing, and rock bottom expectations for most sectors will prove once again a low bar to surpass. Earnings ultimately matter for stock returns. As a reminder the SPX drubbing in March predicted a collapse in 2020 EPS below $110, and the subsequent 1000 point S&P 500 rebound since the lows signals a return to EPS trend near $162 in 2021. The top panel of the chart shows that this is more or less what the Street expects. Our updated four-factor macro model corroborates this V-shaped rebound in profit growth and should continue to underpin stocks on a cyclical time horizon (bottom panel). In the near-term however, we would be cautious and not chase stocks higher. The steeper the short-term rise in the SPX, the steeper the eventual snapback will be. The risks we are monitoring are the high concentration of returns in a handful of tech titans, the Fed’s balance sheet leveling off, a potential fiscal cliff, and a “blue wave” risk that is not at all priced into equities as we recently posited. Bottom Line: While our cyclically sanguine broad equity market view remains intact, we are cautious in the short-term prospects of the S&P 500, until the election uncertainty lifts in November.    

Two Friday’s ago we highlighted that the tech sector’s (plus FANG: FB, AMZN, NFLX & GOOGL) market cap weight in the SPX was high and rising to uncharted territory near 40%, and such narrowing breadth was a clear risk to the market rally. Today we compare the five tech titans’ market cap weight in the SPX with five GICS1 cyclical sectors (industrials, energy, materials, financials and real estate). The results are staggering: five tech stocks are worth as much as 224 deep and early cyclical stocks in the S&P 500 (top panel). Such high concentration is worrisome and represents a near-term risk to the equity market recovery run. While the drubbing in the 10-year US treasury yield is propelling the tech titans’ forward multiple to the stratosphere (bottom panel), we fear that gravity will sooner-rather-than-later push these stocks back down to earth. NFLX recent earnings fired a warning shot that uncharacteristically high expectations are being built into tech stocks, making them vulnerable to sizable pullbacks. Bottom Line: We remain cautious on the short-term prospects of the S&P 500, until the election uncertainty lifts in November.   ​​​​​​​

Special Report

Highlights IG Energy: Investors should overweight Energy bonds within an overweight allocation to investment grade corporate bonds overall. Within IG Energy, the Independent sub-sector should perform best, and we recommend avoiding the higher-rated Integrated space. HY Energy: Investors should overweight high-yield Energy relative to the overall junk index. In particular, investors should focus their exposure on the Independent sub-sector, while avoiding the distressed Oil Field Services space. Feature This week we present part 2 of our two-part Special Report on Energy bonds. Last week’s report showed how to develop a model for Energy bond excess returns (both investment grade and high-yield) based on overall corporate bond index spreads and the oil price.1 This week, we delve deeper into the characteristics of both the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes to better understand how both are likely to trade in the coming months. Chart 1High-Yield Energy Bond Returns Have Bottomed Chart 2Energy Index Sub-Sector Composition* In this week’s deep dive, we don’t limit ourselves to an examination of the overall Energy index. We also consider the outlooks for its five main sub-sectors: Integrated: Major oil firms that are present along the entire supply chain – from exploration and production all the way down to refined products for consumers. Independent: Exploration & production firms. Oil Field Services: Support services for the Independent sector – notably drilling. Midstream: Transportation (pipelines), storage and marketing of crude oil. Refining Chart 2 shows the share of each sub-sector in both the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes. Midstream (46%) and Integrated (31%) are the largest sub-sectors in the investment grade index. Independent (48%) and Midstream (36%) are the heavyweights in the high-yield space. Investment Grade Energy Risk Profile Overall, investment grade Energy bonds are highly cyclical. That is, they tend to outperform the corporate benchmark during periods of spread tightening and underperform during periods of spread widening. This cyclical behavior is due to Energy’s lower credit rating compared to the Bloomberg Barclays Corporate index. Sixty five percent of Energy’s market cap carries a Baa rating compared to 59% for the overall index (Chart 3). The sector’s cyclical nature is confirmed by its duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio,2 which is well above 1.0 (Chart 4A). Interestingly, Energy has only been a highly cyclical sector since the 2014-2016 oil price crash. Prior to that, Energy mostly tracked the corporate index’s performance and only slightly underperformed the benchmark during the 2008/09 financial crisis. More recently, Energy underperformed the corporate index dramatically when spreads widened in March, but has outperformed by 936 bps since spreads peaked on March 23 (Chart 4A, panel 3). Energy has only been a highly cyclical sector since the 2014- 2016 oil price crash. Turning to the sub-sectors, the Integrated sub-sector immediately stands out as the only one with a higher average credit rating than the corporate benchmark. Ninety-two percent of Integrated issuers are rated A or Aa (Chart 3). The presence of the global oil majors (Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP) is what gives the sub-sector its higher average credit quality and makes it the only defensive Energy sub-sector. Notice that Integrated even proved resilient during the 2014-16 Energy bond turmoil (Chart 4B). The remaining four sub-sectors (Independent, Oil Field Services, Midstream and Refining) all have lower average credit ratings than the corporate index (Chart 3) and all trade cyclically relative to the benchmark with Independent (Chart 4C) and Oil Field Services (Chart 4D) being more cyclical than Midstream (Chart 4E) and Refining (Chart 4F). Interestingly, Independent trades more cyclically than Midstream and Refining despite having a greater concentration of high-rated issuers. This is likely due the fact that Independent (aka Exploration & Production) firms are more dependent on the level of oil prices, and typically require a certain minimum oil price to support capital spending and growth. Meanwhile, crude oil is an input for Refining firms and lower oil prices can boost margins, helping offset some of the negative impact from growth downturns. Chart 3Investment Grade Credit Rating Distributions* Chart 4AIG Energy Risk Profile Chart 4BIG Integrated Risk Profile Chart 4CIG Independent Risk Profile Chart 4DIG Oil Field Services Risk Profile Chart 4EIG Midstream Risk Profile Chart 4FIG Refining Risk Profile   Valuation In terms of value, we find that the Energy sector offers a spread advantage relative to the corporate index and its equivalently-rated (Baa) benchmark (Table 1). This advantage holds up after we control for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread. The four cyclical sub-sectors (Independent, Oil Field Services, Midstream and Refining) all also look cheap, whether or not we control for duration differences. Integrated, the sole defensive sub-sector, is roughly fairly valued compared to the equivalently-rated (Aa) benchmark. Table 1IG Energy Valuation Balance Sheet Health The par value of outstanding investment grade Energy debt jumped sharply as oil prices plunged in 2014. But the sector has barely issued any debt since the 2014-16 collapse. Instead, Energy firms have relied on capital spending reductions, asset sales, equity issuance and dividend cuts to raise cash. This shift toward austerity explains why Energy’s weight in the index fell from 11% in 2015 to 8% today (Chart 5A). The median Energy firm’s net debt-to-EBITDA consequently improved between 2017 and 2019, but has once again started to rise as earnings have struggled in recent quarters (Chart 5A, bottom panel). At the issuer level, 15 out of the investment grade index’s 56 Energy issuers currently have a negative ratings outlook from Moody’s (Appendix A). Of the 23 Energy sector ratings that Moody’s has reviewed in 2020, 12 have been affirmed with a stable outlook and 11 were assigned negative outlooks. At the sub-sector level, Integrated debt growth lagged that of the corporate index during the last recovery (Chart 5B). Though the sub-sector has an average credit rating of Aa, most issuers carry negative ratings outlooks, including four of the five global oil majors (Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil and BP). Interestingly, Independent trades more cyclically than Midstream and Refining, despite having a greater concentration of high-rated issuers. The outstanding par value of investment grade Independent debt had been stagnant since 2015, it then plunged this year as three sizeable issuers were downgraded from investment grade to high-yield (Chart 5C). EQT Corp, Occidental Petroleum and Apache Corp were all downgraded during the past few months. They currently account for 21% of the high-yield Energy index’s market cap. Encouragingly, only two of the 16 remaining investment grade Independent issuers currently have negative ratings outlooks. The situation is less favorable for Oil Field Services. This sub-sector’s outstanding debt has remained low since the 2014-16 collapse (Chart 5D), but four of the six investment grade Oil Field Services issuers have negative ratings outlooks. Midstream (Chart 5E) and Refining (Chart 5F) both continued to grow their outstanding debt levels throughout the entirety of the last recovery, including during the 2014-16 period. At present, only three of the 23 investment grade Midstream issuers have negative ratings outlooks, while two of the four Refining issuers have negative outlooks. Chart 5AIG Energy Debt Growth Chart 5BIG Integrated Debt Growth Chart 5CIG Independent Debt Growth Chart 5DIG Oil Field Services Debt Growth Chart 5EIG Midstream Debt Growth Chart 5FIG Refining Debt Growth   Investment Conclusions As per last week’s report, we recommend that investors overweight Energy bonds within their investment grade corporate bond allocations. This recommendation stems from our view that corporate bond spreads will tighten during the next 12 months and that the oil price will rise. As such, we want to favor cyclical investment grade bond sectors that will outperform during periods of spread tightening. With that in mind, we would advise investors to focus their investment grade Energy allocations on the most cyclical sub-sector: Independent. Not only does the Independent sub-sector have the highest DTS ratio of the five sub-sectors, but its weakest credits have already been purged from the index and further downgrades are less likely. Oil Field Services offer less spread pick-up than Independent, and also have a higher proportion of issuers with negative ratings outlooks.  By similar logic, we would avoid the Integrated sub-sector. This sub-sector trades defensively relative to the corporate benchmark and a high proportion of its issuers have negative ratings outlooks. High-Yield Energy Bonds Risk Profile On average, the High-Yield Energy index and the overall High-Yield corporate index have very similar credit ratings. However, the Energy sector has a more barbelled credit rating distribution with a greater proportion of Ba-rated securities (64% versus 55%) and a greater proportion of Ca-C rated issuers (8% versus 1%) (Chart 6). Chart 6High-Yield Credit Rating Distributions* Chart 7AHY Energy Risk Profile It is likely some combination of the larger presence of very low-rated credits and increased oil price volatility that has caused the sector to trade cyclically versus the junk benchmark since 2014 (Chart 7A). Notice that Energy outperformed the junk index during the 2008 sell off, but has since turned cyclical, underperforming in both the 2015/16 and 2020 risk-off episodes. At the sub-sector level, there is currently only one high-yield rated Integrated issuer (Cenovus Energy Inc., Ba-rated, negative outlook). Based on their DTS ratios, the Independent and Oil Field Services sub-sectors are the most cyclical (Charts 7B & 7C). This is because the lower-rated (Caa & below) issuers are concentrated in the these spaces. This is particularly true for Oil Field Services where 41% of the sub-sector’s market cap is rated Caa or below. The Midstream sub-sector also trades cyclically relative to the junk benchmark, but with somewhat less volatility than Independent and Oil Field Services, as evidenced by its DTS ratio of 1.2 (Chart 7D). Refining has traded like a cyclical sector so far this year, but that may not continue now that its DTS ratio has fallen close to 1.0 (Chart 7E). Chart 7BHY Independent Risk Profile Chart 7CHY Oil Field Services Risk Profile Chart 7DHY Midstream Risk Profile Chart 7EHY Refining Risk Profile   Valuation The Energy sector offers a significant spread advantage over the High-Yield index and also relative to other Ba-rated issuers (Table 2). Adjusting for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread makes Energy look even more attractive. Energy spreads need to widen by 189 bps during the next 12 months to underperform duration-matched Treasuries. This compares to 93 bps for other Ba-rated issuers and 150 bps for the overall junk index. Table 2HY Energy Valuation Four of the five Energy sub-sectors (Integrated being the exception) also offer attractive value relative to the overall index and their equivalently-rated benchmarks. This remains true after adjusting for duration differences. Balance Sheet Health The high-yield Energy sector has added much more debt than the overall junk index since 2010 (Chart 8A). But of greater concern is that Moody’s has already changed its ratings outlook from stable to negative for 58 Energy issuers since the start of the year. Meanwhile, only 17 high-yield Energy issuers have seen their ratings outlooks confirmed as stable in 2020. Nevertheless, we take some comfort knowing that the Energy sector should benefit from having a large number of issuers able to take advantage of the Federal Reserve’s Main Street Lending facilities. As a reminder, to be eligible for the Main Street facilities issuers must have fewer than 15000 employees or less than $5 billion in 2019 revenue. They must also be able to keep their Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0, including any new debt added through the Main Street programs. The Energy sector offers a significant spread advantage over the High-Yield index and also relative to other Barated issuers. Of the 61 US high-yield Energy issuers with available data (we exclude 23 foreign issuers that won’t have access to US programs), we estimate that at least 48 are eligible to receive support from the Main Street facilities (Appendix B). This not only includes 15 out of 20 B-rated issuers, but also 12 out of 15 Caa-rated issuers and 4 out of 7 issuers rated below Caa. This broad access is the result of deleveraging that has occurred since the 2014-16 bust (Chart 8A, bottom panel) and it should go a long way toward limiting defaults in the Energy space. The Independent sub-sector’s weight in the index jumped sharply this year, the result of adding three sizeable fallen angels (Chart 8B). Importantly, 24 out of the 28 US Independent issuers appear eligible for Fed support. In contrast, the Oil Field Services sector is in distress. Its weight in the index has been declining for more than a year (Chart 8C), and a large proportion of its issuers are concentrated in lower credit tiers. However, we estimate that out of 19 issuers with available data, 13 are eligible for the Fed’s Main Street Lending facilities. Both Midstream and Refining have high concentrations of Ba-rated issuers and neither has aggressively grown its presence in the index during the past decade (Charts 8D & 8E), though Midstream’s index weight did jump this year. The high credit quality of both indexes means that most issuers will have access to the Main Street facilities, though three of the five Refining issuers are not US based. Chart 8AHY Energy Debt Growth Chart 8BHY Independent Debt GrowthChart 8CHY Oil Field Services Debt Growth Chart 8DHY Midstream Debt Growth Chart 8EHY Refining Debt Growth   Investment Conclusions The conclusion from the model we presented in last week’s report was that high-yield Energy should outperform the junk index during the next 12 months, assuming that overall junk spreads tighten and the oil price rises. However, we remain concerned that, despite the nascent economic recovery, some low-rated Energy names will go bust during the next few months, weighing on index returns. The pattern from the 2014-16 default cycle argues that our concerns may be overblown. In February 2016, high-yield Energy started to outperform the overall junk index slightly after the trough in oil prices and eleven months before the peak in the 12-month trailing default rate (Chart 1 on page 1). If oil prices are indeed already past their cyclical trough, then it may already be a good time to bottom-fish in the high-yield Energy space. The fact that the bulk of high-yield Energy issuers are eligible for support through the Main Street lending facilities tips the scales, and we recommend that investors overweight high-yield Energy relative to the overall junk index. In particular, we think investors should focus on the Independent sub-sector where value is very attractive and most issuers can tap the Fed for help if needed. We would, however, avoid the Oil Field Services sector where the bulk of Energy defaults are likely to come from. Midstream and Refining should perform well, but are less cyclical and less attractively valued than the Independent sub-sector. Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 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, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007.   Appendix A Investment Grade Energy Issuers Appendix B High-Yield Energy Issuers