アメリカ合衆国

A profligate US government where $3 trillion + fiscal packages are passed with a strong bipartisan consensus compelled us to examine S&P sector performance during inflationary periods. Specifically, health care stocks have consistently outperformed during inflationary periods (see chart). Over the long haul, it has paid to overweight this sector given the structural uptrend in relative share prices. Spending on health care services is non-cyclical and demand for such services is on a secular rise around the globe, and most recently further catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic: in the developed markets driven largely by the aging population and in the emerging markets by the accelerating adoption of health care safety nets and higher standards. As a reminder, we are currently overweight the S&P health care sector. For more details on S&P GICS1 sector performance during inflationary periods, please refer to our recent Special Report.

Our reinstated long XOP / short GDX pair trade hit its rolling 10% stop intraday yesterday, forcing us to crystalize 32% gains in just over a month. While our original thesis for this pair trade that was outlined in the April 27th Weekly Report has not changed, we adhere to the risk management tool we put in place and act on our profit-taking stop. We will be looking to reopen this trade later in the summer at a better entry point, especially if as we highlighted on Monday’s Weekly Report the rise in (geo)political risks serve as a catalyst for a much need broad equity market breather. Bottom Line: Crystallize 32% gains in the long XOP / short GDX pair trade, but stay tuned. ​​​​​​​

特別レポート

Highlights The economic and health crises since Q1 2020 have accelerated the breakdown in the US-China relationship. Although the US is in a much weaker economic position this year than in 2019, President Trump may have fewer political constraints to an escalation in the trade war. President Xi Jinping is fueling provocations with the US, adding instability and unpredictability to the geopolitical equation. The Phase One trade deal may be collapsing. We recommend a defensive stance on Chinese risk assets and the RMB during the summer. Feature The outbreak of COVID-19 this year has sparked the worst economic contraction in China and the US in decades. Economic calamities and social unrest should have tied the hands of leaders in both countries. However, as our Geopolitical Strategist Matt Gertken reminds us, this is an atypical election year in the US and some constraints that previously deterred both sides from taking aggressive actions may be diminishing.1 We agree that the economic and health crises have likely accelerated the possibility of a breakdown in the relationship between the US and China. The risk will likely reach a new height in the summer, when pressure on Trump’s election campaign intensifies leading up to the vote in November. While there is a growing bipartisan hawkish view on China in Washington, China is also playing a part in fanning the flames. The USD/CNY exchange rate will be extremely volatile during this episode of heightened geopolitical turbulence. We continue to hold a long USD-CNH position, with the expectation that the RMB will likely weaken further in the summer. Trump Facing Fewer Constraints Whether Trump’s chances of reelection increase through a strong recovery in the US stock market and economy, or decrease through an economic recession and/or weak public support, either scenario could remove constraints preventing Trump from confronting China.     Trump’s current priority may be to secure a recovery in the equity market and improve his polling, which will require economic improvement. Ironically, the US stock market has been on fire despite the battered real economy. The S&P 500 Index has gone up by 44% since its trough on March 23, nearly erasing its losses for the year. The higher the market rises, the more Trump may believe that the market can sustain a shock even if he resorts to imposing tariffs on Chinese export goods - particularly if his approval rating does not rise along with the market. The market’s reaction in 2018 and 2019 provides a good example of how the US financial markets shrugged off any negative impact from a trade war between the US and China (Chart 1). If the pandemic prevents the US economy from fully reopening and/or recovering in the summer, then an equity market correction could send a negative signal about Trump’s reelection prospects. In this case, Trump may not be as enslaved by financial constraints as he would have been if the economy was in an expansionary state.  A falling approval rating, coupled with domestic social unrest, would make Trump a “lame duck” President (Chart 2).  Therefore, he may try to divert attention away from the economy and adopt an aggressive foreign and trade policy. China is already perceived negatively by a majority of American voters and certain political communities, thus there could be a political upside for Trump to escalate his confrontation with China. Chart 1US Stocks Kept Reaching New Highs In 2019 Despite An Ongoing Trade War Chart 2Trump’s Polling Drops Below Average All bets are off if Trump’s approval rating continues to trend downwards, regardless of whether the US equity market continues to rally and/or if the US economy is mired in recession. Our Geopolitical Strategy illustrates the scenarios as follows (Diagram 1). If Trump’s approval rating is high and the market is up, then Trump is “winning” and the only risk of a tariff hike would come from overconfidence or Chinese provocation. If his approval is up but the market falls, then he may become more inclined to use tariffs. If his approval rating is low but the market is up, then he has ammunition to get tougher on China. If his approval and the market are collapsing, then he is a “lame duck president” and all bets are off. Combined, these scenarios imply there is a 59% probability that Trump refrains from large tariffs, and a 41% chance that he reverts to large tariffs. Diagram 1Odds President Trump Will Hike Tariffs On China Before US Election Bottom Line: All bets are off if Trump’s approval rating continues to trend downwards, regardless of whether the US equity market continues to rally and/or if the US economy is mired in recession. Both scenarios would remove financial and economic constraints that Trump faced in 2019. If Trump's polling is weak, he may spend financial ammunition to shore up his “America First” credentials.      Adding China To The Geopolitical Instability Equation China itself may be an independent source of geopolitical instability and unpredictability. While President Xi Jinping does not have any electoral constraints, he needs to restore the confidence of Chinese people in the wake of the worst public health crisis and economic performance in decades. Like Trump, the pandemic gives President Xi an incentive to distract his populace from domestic crises by adopting hawkish foreign policies.  This hawkish approach was demonstrated when a new Hong Kong SAR national security law was proposed and approved at this year’s National People’s Congress (NPC). The new law would give Beijing greater direct control over Hong Kong, in contravention of its promise of 50 years of substantial autonomy enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984.  China’s foreign policy tone recently shifted to a more combative one. This “wolf warrior diplomacy" has gained popularity among Chinese diplomats.2 During a news conference at this year’s NPC, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi defended the “wolf warrior diplomacy” by stating that the country will stand firm in defending its national interest and combating “smears.”  Chart 3Chinese Imports Of American Goods Are Falling Far Short Of The Target Set By The Trade Deal The response from the Trump administration has been lukewarm. While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will strip Hong Kong of its autonomous status, President Trump is taking limited sanctions on mainland China and eschewing more drastic punitive measures. China may see the timid response as a sign that Trump is reluctant to take action on China and tip the bilateral relationship into an outright confrontation. This perception is, in itself, a risk that may lead to more provocation on both sides. Lastly, the Phase One trade deal is tenuous. US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer last week stated that "China has done a pretty good job" at meeting its trade-deal quotas,3 but we have long argued China was never going to honor the commitment to its full extent.4 The latest data shows that Chinese purchases of American exports in the first four months of 2020, from manufacturing goods to agricultural produce and energy, have fallen far short of the huge expansion agreed in the deal (Chart 3). The recent depreciation in the RMB may be another sign that China is abandoning the Phase One trade deal.5 Weakness in economic fundamentals and renewed tensions between the US and China may have contributed to the RMB’s recent depreciation. However, the decline was reinforced by the PBoC’s move to set the CNY/USD fixing rate to its lowest point since 2008 (Chart 4). Given that the RMB has become an anchor for emerging market currencies, a rapid drop in the RMB would lead to selloffs in emerging Asian and Latin American currencies and, in turn, would strengthen the USD (Chart 5). The Trump administration may see a swift RMB depreciation as China is deliberately violating the Phase One trade deal, which will prompt Trump to seek retaliatory actions against China. Chinese purchases of American goods in the first four months of 2020 have fallen far short of the Phase One trade agreement. Chart 4Is The PBoC Sending A Warning Signal To Trump? Chart 5The RMB Has Been The Anchor Currency In EM Bottom Line: While China is prioritizing its own economic recovery, its foreign policy stance has decisively swung to a more combative one. Additionally, the Phase One trade deal is on the verge of collapsing.  Investment Conclusions The USD/CNY exchange rate will likely be extremely volatile in the next quarter amid heightened geopolitical turbulence, with more downside risks to the RMB. As such, we continue to recommend that investors hedge their RMB exposure in Chinese stocks by holding a long USD-CNH position. We remain neutral on Chinese stocks in relative terms in view of the non-trivial, near-term vulnerability of risk assets. As in 2019, investable stocks are particularly exposed to an escalation in the US-China conflict (Chart 6). Chart 6Large Divergence In Onshore Versus Offshore Stock Performance During The Trade War Chart 7Stocks In Some Domestic Demand-Oriented Sectors Are Still Relatively Safe Bets Price corrections in both China’s onshore and offshore aggregate equity markets are likely to occur during the summer. Nevertheless, cyclical plays that closely track Chinese stimulus are relatively safe bets, especially for China’s domestic investors and in absolute terms (Chart 7).   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Spheres Of Influence (GeoRisk Update)," dated May 29, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2South China Morning Post, “Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi defends ‘wolf warrior’ diplomats for standing up to ‘smears’”, May 24, 2020 3Bloomberg, “Lighthizer Says He Feels ‘Very Good’ About Phase One China Deal”, June 4, 2020 4Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Managing Expectations," dated January 22, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5The Phase One trade deal prohibits both the US and China from manipulating exchange rates to devalue their currencies for competitive purposes. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

The SPX catapulted to fresh recovery highs, on the back of optimism surrounding the successful reopening of the economy along with the ongoing support of easy fiscal and monetary policies. Sentiment is not as extended as in February or during previous SPX tops in the past few years, as we highlighted in recent research.1 Equity market internals signal that there is likely a bit more gas left in the tank, despite the roughly 1000 point rise since the March 23 lows. The S&P deep cyclicals/defensives share price ratio, has led the broad equity market bottom and continues to herald additional gains for the SPX (not shown). Deep cyclicals include tech stocks, but even if IT were excluded, the cyclicals ex-tech/defensives ratio still troughed prior to the SPX and is gaining steam. Importantly, the turn in our Global Trade Activity Indicator corroborates the message that the cyclicals/defensives ratio is emitting (see chart). Further, the recent breakout in the JPM EM currency index along with budding evidence of China’s economic recovery and likelihood of a stimulus package (not as large as the GFC, but bigger than the early-2016 manufacturing recession one) suggest that global growth is slated to recover in the back half of the year. Bottom Line: We remain constructive on the broad market’s prospects  over the coming 9-12 month time horizon. For more details, please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report.   Footnotes 1  Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “There’s No Limit” dated May 26, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Duration: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, but continue to hold yield curve steepeners (on both the nominal and real yield curves) as well as overweight TIPS positions versus nominal Treasuries. These tactical trades will profit from higher Treasury yields in the near-term. Healthcare: We recommend an overweight allocation to investment grade Healthcare bonds relative to the overall investment grade corporate index. But we also recommend an underweight allocation to high-yield Healthcare relative to the high-yield corporate index.  Pharmaceuticals: Investors should underweight Pharmaceutical bonds in both the investment grade and high-yield credit universes. How Much Higher For Bond Yields? Two weeks ago, we warned that bonds would struggle in the near-term as the re-opening of the US economy led to an improvement in economic data.1 However, we definitely didn’t anticipate the magnitude of the positive data surprise that has occurred since then. The US Economic Surprise Index was -55 one week ago and today it sits at +66 (Chart 1)! The bulk of that jump occurred after Friday’s employment report revealed that 2.5 million jobs were added in May when Bloomberg’s consensus estimate had called for a contraction of 7.5 million. Against this back-drop, it shouldn’t be too surprising that bond yields jumped sharply. The 30-year Treasury yield rose 27 bps last week to 1.68% and the 10-year yield rose 26 bps to 0.91% (Chart 2). The 2-year yield rose a more modest 6 bps to 0.22%, as the Fed maintains its tight grip on the front-end of the curve. Chart 1Back In Business Chart 2Yields Have Room To Move Higher For investors, the first relevant question is: How high can yields go? Our view is that if last week does indeed represent the cyclical economic trough, then forward rates at the long-end of the curve will revert to levels consistent with market expectations for the long-run neutral fed funds rate. The median estimate of that rate from the New York Fed’s most recent Survey of Market Participants is 2%, but with an unusually wide interquartile range of 1.3% to 2.5% (Chart 2, bottom panel). At the very least, we’d expect the 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields to re-test their respective 200-day moving averages of 1.38% and 1.91%, respectively. However, we are not ready to declare last week the economic trough for three reasons: First, we cannot rule out a re-acceleration in the number of confirmed COVID cases as the economy re-opens. This could lead to the re-imposition of lockdown measures come fall. Second, last week’s positive economic data might cause some members of Congress to question the need for further fiscal stimulus. This would be a mistake. In last week’s report we showed that fiscal measures have done a good job propping up household income so far, but these measures are temporary and will need to be renewed.2  Even after last week’s large drop, the unemployment rate is still 3.3% above its Great Recession peak (Chart 1, bottom panel). This is by no means a fully healed economy that can withstand policymakers taking their feet off the gas. Even after last week’s large drop, the unemployment rate is still 3.3% above its Great Recession peak. Finally, US political risks are heightened with anti-police protests occurring daily in most major cities. Added to that, President Trump is now the underdog heading into November’s election and he will need to develop a reelection bid that doesn’t hinge on the economy. Our geopolitical strategists think a doubling down on “America First” foreign and trade policies makes the most sense.3 A significant move in that direction would certainly send a flight to quality into US bonds. Investment Strategy As we advised two weeks ago, nimble investors should tactically reduce duration as yields still have more upside in the next month or two. However, we are not yet sufficiently confident in the sustainability of the economic rebound to recommend reducing portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rather, we continue to recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark while holding several less risky positions that will profit from higher yields. Specifically, investors should hold duration-neutral curve steepeners along the nominal Treasury curve. We advise going long the 5-year note and short a 2/10 barbell.4 We also like holding TIPS over nominal Treasuries and positioning for a steeper real Treasury curve.5 In terms of spread product, we also recommend staying the course. This entails overweighting corporate bonds rated Ba and higher, Aaa consumer ABS, Aaa CMBS (both agency and non-agency) and municipal bonds, while avoiding corporate bonds rated B and below and residential mortgage-backed securities. Appendix A at the end of this report shows how these positions have performed since the March 23 peak in spreads. The remainder of this report focuses on the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical sectors of both the investment grade and high-yield corporate bond markets. Investment Grade Healthcare & Pharma Risk Profile When assessing the risk profiles for investment grade-rated Healthcare and Pharmaceutical bonds, we first consider the credit rating distributions of both sectors relative to the overall Bloomberg Barclays corporate index (Chart 3). Chart 3Investment Grade Credit Rating Distribution* Immediately, we see that the Healthcare sector has a lower credit rating than the benchmark: 71% of the Healthcare index is rated Baa, compared to 48% for the corporate index. Meanwhile, the Pharmaceuticals sector has slightly higher credit quality than the corporate benchmark: 12% of the Pharmaceuticals index is rated Aa or Aaa, compared to 8% for the corporate index. Credit rating alone suggests that Healthcare should trade cyclically relative to the corporate index. That is, it should outperform during periods of spread tightening and underperform during periods of spread widening. However, this turns out to not be the case. Chart 4 shows that healthcare has outperformed the corporate benchmark during each of the last five major bouts of spread widening and underperformed during periods of spread tightening. Clearly, despite its low credit rating, Healthcare trades like a defensive corporate bond sector. Healthcare’s historically defensive nature is confirmed by its duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio, which has tended to be below 1.0 (Chart 4, top panel).6 Though recently, the DTS ratio climbed above 1.0 due to a lengthening of the sector’s duration (Chart 4, bottom panel). This suggests that Healthcare, while historically defensive, might trade more cyclically during the next 12 months. Neither the Healthcare nor Pharmaceuticals sectors offer a spread advantage over the corporate index. Pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, are a much more cut and dry defensive sector (Chart 5). The DTS ratio is almost always below 1.0 and the sector has a strong track record of outperforming the corporate index during periods of spread widening (Chart 5, panels 2 & 3) Chart 4IG Healthcare Risk Profile Chart 5IG Pharma Risk Profile   Valuation Turning to valuation, we find that neither sector offers a spread advantage compared to the corporate index or its comparable credit tier (Table 1). This is true whether we look at the raw option-adjusted spread or if we control for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread.7  It is interesting to note that the Healthcare index offers a spread advantage compared to the A-rated corporate index. On the one hand, this is not surprising because the Healthcare index carries an average Baa rating. On the other hand, we have seen that Healthcare tends to trade more defensively than its average credit rating implies. This arguably makes its spread advantage over A-rated debt somewhat compelling. Table 1IG Healthcare & Pharma Valuation Balance Sheet Health Both the Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals sectors loaded up on debt during the last recovery. The amount of Healthcare debt in the corporate index grew 8.8 times since 2010. Meanwhile, total debt in the corporate index grew 2.4 times. The result is that Healthcare’s weight in the corporate index increased from 1.1% in 2010 to 4.3% today (Chart 6). The Pharma sector also increased its debt load at a faster pace than the overall corporate universe since 2010 (3.2 times versus 2.4 times), but the boom in Pharma debt has been much milder than in Healthcare. The weight of Pharmaceuticals in the corporate index increased from 4.1% in 2010 to 5.5% today (Chart 7). Chart 6IG Healthcare Debt Growth Chart 7IG Pharma Debt Growth Despite rapid debt growth during the past few years, credit quality in both the Healthcare and Pharma sectors appears quite solid. Appendix B lists the issuers in the Healthcare index, grouping them by credit tier and indicating whether they carry a positive, stable or negative ratings outlook from Moody’s. Of the 56 issuers in the Healthcare index, only six currently have a negative ratings outlook. The two largest issuers in the Healthcare index are Cigna and CVS Health. Both carry Baa ratings, but Moody’s just confirmed Cigna’s ratings outlook at stable in mid-May. CVS Health, on the other hand, has carried a negative ratings outlook since 2018. Appendix C lists issuers in the Pharmaceuticals index. Of the 17 issuers, only four carry a negative ratings outlook. None of the Baa-rated Pharmaceutical issuers currently has a negative ratings outlook. The two biggest issuers in the index are Bristol-Myers Squibb and Abbvie. Bristol-Myers Squibb is A-rated with a negative outlook, while Abbvie is Baa-rated with a stable outlook. Macro Considerations In a typical demand-driven recession, consumers tend to prioritize healthcare spending while they cut back on more discretionary outlays. This dynamic is probably what causes healthcare bonds to trade defensively relative to the overall corporate index. However, the unique nature of the COVID recession has thrown this traditional pattern into reverse. Consumer spending on health care services is down 40% since February while overall consumer spending is 19% lower (Chart 8). Oddly, healthcare bonds shrugged off this year’s massive drop in spending and continued to behave defensively – outperforming the corporate index when spreads widened and underperforming since the March 23 peak in spreads. Despite the plunge in spending, pricing power in the health care industry remains strong. Health care services prices continue to accelerate even as overall inflation has dropped sharply (Chart 8, bottom panel). Unlike healthcare, pharmaceutical spending has held firm during the past couple of months (Chart 9). Consumer spending on pharmaceuticals is only down 4% since February, while overall consumer spending is down 19%. But despite firm spending, medicinal drug prices have decelerated in concert with the overall headline CPI (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 8Healthcare Demand & Pricing Power Chart 9Pharmaceutical Demand & Pricing Power Investment Conclusions Putting everything together, we are inclined to recommend an underweight allocation to Pharmaceuticals and an overweight allocation to investment grade Healthcare. Pharmaceuticals are simply too expensive and too defensive for the current environment. Given our positive outlook on investment grade corporate bonds, we should target cyclical sectors with elevated spreads that have more room to compress. Healthcare is slightly more interesting. It has behaved like a typical defensive sector so far this year, but there are some indications that it is becoming more cyclical. The DTS ratio recently shot above 1.0 and consumer spending on healthcare services is poised for a rapid snapback. In terms of valuation, healthcare is expensive relative to other Baa-rated bonds but cheap versus the A-rated universe. This would seem to make healthcare a good risk-adjusted bet. Even if the sector continues to behave defensively, its spread advantage over A-rated bonds makes it an attractively priced defensive sector. High-Yield Healthcare & Pharma Risk Profile Considering the risk profile of high-yield Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals, we first notice that both sectors have significantly lower credit ratings than the overall junk index (Chart 10). Ba-rated credits account for 29% and 24% of the Healthcare and Pharma indexes, respectively, compared to 54% for the High-Yield index as a whole. Chart 10High-Yield Credit Rating Distribution* The fact that significant portions of the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical indexes are rated B and lower immediately raises alarm bells. This is because we do not expect that many B-rated or lower issuers will be able to take advantage of the Fed’s Main Street Lending Program. This lack of Fed support for the lower-rated junk tiers has led us to recommend underweighting junk bonds rated B & below.8 High-yield Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals sectors have significantly lower credit ratings than the overall junk index. Interestingly, despite low credit ratings, a look at both sectors’ DTS ratios and historical excess returns reveals that they tend to trade defensively relative to the high-yield benchmark index. Healthcare outperformed the high-yield index by 473 bps from the beginning of the year until the March 23 peak in spreads and has underperformed the index by 123 bps since (Chart 11). Similarly, Pharmaceuticals outperformed the junk index by 670 bps from the beginning of the year until March 23 and have since underperformed by 136 bps (Chart 12). Chart 11HY Healthcare Risk Profile Chart 12HY Pharma Risk Profile Valuation Turning to spreads, we would characterize both high-yield Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals as expensive (Table 2). Despite both sectors carrying average credit ratings of B, they offer spreads that are below both the overall junk index average and the average for other B-rated credits. Tight option-adjusted spreads are at least partially attributable to low average duration for both sectors. If we adjust for duration differences by looking at 12-month breakeven spreads, we see that Pharmaceuticals look somewhat cheap versus other B-rated credits while Healthcare remains expensive. Table 2HY Healthcare & Pharma Valuation Balance Sheet Health Healthcare debt has grown less quickly than overall high-yield index debt since 2010 (Chart 13). Healthcare debt has grown 1.7 times since 2010 while the overall index has grown 1.8 times. This has caused Healthcare’s weight in the index to fall from 6.2% to 5.7%. In contrast, the high-yield Pharmaceuticals sector has grown rapidly during the past decade (Chart 14). Pharma debt has increased 10.3 times since 2010 compared to 1.8 times for the overall index. This has brought the sector’s weight in the index up to 2.3% from 0.4% Chart 13HY Healthcare Debt Growth Chart 14HY Pharma Debt Growth Looking beyond debt growth, in the current environment we are mostly concerned with the number of issuers in each index that will be able to access Fed support through the Main Street Lending facilities. In this regard, neither sector fares particularly well. Appendix D lists all high-yield Healthcare issuers along with their ratings outlooks, number of employees, 2019 revenues and total debt-to-EBITDA ratios. To qualify for the Fed’s Main Street Lending facilities, issuers must have either less than 15000 employees or less than $5 billion in 2019 revenues. Additionally, they must be able to keep their Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0. We estimate that all but three of the Ba-rated Healthcare issuers are eligible for the Main Street program, but only one of the B-rated issuers is eligible. High-yield Pharmaceuticals issuers are listed in Appendix E. Here, we once again find that only one of the B-rated issuers is likely to qualify for the Main Street lending facilities. Of the two Ba-rated issuers, one is likely to qualify. The other is Bausch Health, a Canadian firm that is by far the largest issuer in the Pharma index. It would need to turn to the Canadian authorities for help in an emergency lending situation. Investment Conclusions We recommend underweight allocations to both the high-yield Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals sectors. In the current environment we prefer to focus our high-yield credit exposure on the Ba-rated credit tier where issuers are more likely to have access to Fed support. The large concentration of B-rated and lower issuers in both the Healthcare and Pharma sectors, along with their generally expensive valuations, makes us wary about both sectors. 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 Appendix B Table 4Investment Grade Healthcare Issuers Appendix C Table 5Investment Grade Pharmaceuticals Issuers Appendix D Table 6High-Yield Healthcare Issuers Appendix E Table 7High-Yield Pharmaceuticals Issuers   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bonds Vulnerable As North America Re-Opens”, dated May 26, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Filling The Income Gap”, dated June 2, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Spheres Of Influence (GeoRisk Update)”, dated May 29, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on this recommended yield curve position please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Life At The Zero Bound”, dated March 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on these recommendations please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 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. 7 The 12-month breakeven spread represents the spread widening that must occur for a sector to underperform a duration-matched position in Treasury securities during the next 12 months. It can be proxied by option-adjusted spread divided by duration. 8 For more details please see US Investment Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures”, dated April 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification