Asset Allocation
GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of April 30, 2020. The model has not made significant changes this month. Now Spain, Australia, Sweden and the US are the top four overweight countries, while Japan, the UK, France and Switzerland remain the four underweight countries, as shown in Table 1. Table 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark in April by 105 bps. The Level 1 model outperformed by 32 bps because of the overweight in the US. The Level 2 model outperformed by 241 bps thanks to the overweight of Australia and Canada, and the underweight in Japan, the UK, France and Switzerland. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 105 bps, with 135 bps of outperformance by the Level 2 model, and 29 bps of outperformance from the Level 1. Chart 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA US Vs. Non US Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non US Model (Level 2) For more on historical performance, please refer to our website https://www.bcaresearch.com/site/trades/allocation_performance/latest/G…. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered as well when making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of April 30, 2020. Chart 4Overall Model Performance The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The model turned negative on cyclical sectors in the beginning of March as the COVID-19 crisis intensified and growth indicators deteriorated. Throughout March, April and now May, the model continues to tilt towards defensive sectors. This has helped mitigate the shortfall in early March. However, that came at a cost as the model underperformed the benchmark by 33 basis points over the past month. The global growth proxy used in our model remains negative. This will continue to make the model's positioning focused on less cyclical sectors. The momentum component led the model to overweight Consumer Discretionary over the past month at the expense of Utilities. The unprecedented global monetary measures taken by global central banks should keep the liquidity component favouring a mixed bag of cyclical and defensive sectors. The valuation component remains muted across all sectors except Energy. However, we continue to highlight that the Info Tech’s valuation component has broken into overweight territory (yet the model awaits a downwards confirming momentum signal to recommend an underweight). The model is now overweight four sectors in total, two cyclical sector versus two defensive sectors. These are Information Technology, Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, and Health Care. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model”, dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Table 3Overall Model Performance Table 4Current Model Allocations Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com
Feature Global equities have seen an astonishing rally since mid-March, rising by 28%. This leaves them only 13% below their level at the beginning of the year. This is particularly remarkable given the unprecedented decline in economic activity with, for example, US GDP shrinking by an annualized 4.8% quarter-on-quarter in Q1, and the consensus forecasting it to fall by as much as 30% in Q2. Given this, risk assets are pricing in a highly optimistic trajectory over the coming months: a rapid return to normalcy, a V-shaped economic recovery, and minimal side-effects from the sudden stop to the world economy. In our Q2 Quarterly, we wrote we would turn more cautious if the S&P 500 moved quickly above 2,750.1 With it now at 2910, we are therefore lowering our recommendation on global equities on a 12-month horizon from Overweight to Neutral. The balance of probabilities – and the possibility of a second wave of the pandemic, rising corporate defaults, and problems among EM borrowers – simply does not justify an outright risk-on stance. Bear markets typically end 3-4 months before the economy bottoms (Table 1). If March was the low for stocks, therefore, this implies that the recession will end in June or July. BCA Research’s view is that the recovery is more likely to be U-shaped than V-shaped. Table 1Stocks Bottom On Average 3-4 Months Before The Recession Ends Chart 1New COVID-19 Cases Have Peaked What triggered the rally? Most notably, it anticipated a peaking of new COVID-19 cases in the world outside China (Chart 1). Several countries, notably Spain and Italy, have already felt able to ease quarantine rules, and others will do so during May. This raises the possibility that the pandemic will largely be over by July (except perhaps in a few developing countries, such as Brazil, where strict containment was shunned). The rally was fueled by unprecedented fiscal and monetary measures taken by the authorities everywhere. In the US, for example, the various new Federal Reserve liquidity programs add up to $4.2 trillion (20% of GDP) (Chart 2). The balance-sheets of major global central banks, particularly the Fed's, have ballooned in just a few weeks (Chart 3). As a result, US money supply and dollar liquidity have soared (Chart 4). Normally, when there is a flood of liquidity over and above what is needed to fund the real economy, that excess liquidity flows into asset markets, weakens the dollar, and boosts commodities and Emerging Markets. But these are not normal times. Liquidity injections amid deteriorating economic conditions cushion the downside but do not necessarily improve the outlook immediately – as we witnessed in 2007-2008. Chart 2Multiple New Stimulus Programs… Chart 3...Made Central Bank Balance-Sheets Balloon... Chart 4...And Dollar Liquidity Soar Chart 5Pandemics Usually Have Several Waves The biggest risk is that the pandemic lingers. Epidemiologists agree that COVID-19 will not disappear until (1) a vaccine is available, likely to be 12-18 months (if one is possible at all – there is still no vaccine for HIV or SARS), or (2) 65-80% of the population has had the disease, creating “herd immunity”. Maybe a vaccine will be ready sooner, or a therapeutic treatment will drastically lower the mortality rate – but investors should not bet on it. It is worth remembering that the last big pandemic, the Spanish ‘flu of 1918-1919, had several waves, with the second the deadliest (Chart 5). It is possible that each time governments ease containment measures, the number of new cases will rise again. And even if they don’t, how likely is it that consumers will go back to shopping, eating in restaurants, or travelling as before? Big data from China show a general return to work but not to going out for entertainment (Chart 6). This is likely to remain a drag on the economy for a considerable period. Chart 6Chinese Remain Reluctant To Go Out Moreover, the fiscal and stimulus packages will help to tide over households and companies in advanced economies during the toughest times – replacing lost wages, and providing bridging loans – but they do not solve the fundamental problem for firms that have lost most of their revenues. US corporate debt is at its highest percentage of GDP in recent history – and the ratio is even higher in parts of Europe, Japan, and China (Chart 7). Bankruptcies are likely to rise, which will make banks more cautious about lending, further tightening credit conditions. Moreover, stimulus packages won’t help Emerging Market borrowers, which have around $4 trillion of outstanding foreign-currency-denominated debt. With the sharp rise in EM credit spreads and fall in currencies over the past three months, many will struggle to service and repay this debt (Chart 8). Chart 7Corporate Debt Is At A Worrying Level Chart 8EM Dollar Borrowers Will Struggle Portfolio construction is about probabilities. The scenario priced into risk assets currently – a rapid return to the status quo ante – could turn out to be correct. But there is a significant probability that it does not. We therefore recommend taking some risk off the table. We would not switch into quality government bonds as a hedge, since current yields would give little return even in a disastrous economic scenario – and could produce very negative returns if inflation picks up. We, rather, recommend Overweights in cash and gold, and a relatively low-beta tilt within equities. Equities: Valuations, especially in the US, have not hit typical market-bottom levels. The price/book ratio for US equities, for example, troughed only at 2.9 in March, compared to a bear-market low of 1.5 in 2009 (Chart 9). Earnings will probably be revised down further: the consensus still expects only a 12% decline in S&P 500 EPS in 2020 (and a 21% jump next year); earnings revisions are usually closely correlated to stock prices (Chart 10). We, therefore, remain cautious in our regional equity positioning, with an Overweight on US stocks, and a somewhat defensive sector tilt (Overweights in IT and Healthcare, along with Industrials as a play on Chinese stimulus). One factor to watch: any sustained pickup in value and small-cap stocks, which showed some signs of appearing in late April (Chart 11). This has historically signaled the beginning of a bull market. Chart 9US Valuations Are Not At Usual Bottom Lows Chart 10Weak Earnings Can Drag Markets Down Further Chart 11When Will Value And Small Caps Pick Up? Fixed Income: Quality government bonds look highly unattractive at current yields. Our calculations suggest only an 6.7% return from 10-year US Treasuries and 4.6% from Bunds even if their yields fall to the lowest possible level, 0% and -1% respectively. Inflation-linked bonds, especially in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada, look very undervalued, however.2 US 10-year breakevens have fallen to as low as 1.1% (Chart 12). In spread product, the best strategy at the moment is to buy what central banks are buying. That means investment-grade bonds in the US and Europe, Fallen Angels3 (since both the Fed and ECB will backstop bonds that were downgraded to junk in the past month), US Aaa CMBS and ABS, Agency CMBS, and munis. But the riskier end of the junk-bond universe looks unattractive. Even a moderate default cycle (with a 9% default rate for junk bonds – compared to 15% in the last recession – and a 25% recovery rate) would point to an excess return from B-rated corporate bonds of -20% over the next 12 months (Chart 13). Chart 12TIPS Look Very Cheap Chart 13Avoid The Lower End Of Junk Currencies: The dollar has moved sideways on a trade-weighted basis over the past two months. We remain Neutral, since in the short term the dollar could face upward pressure as a safe-haven play, especially versus Emerging Market currencies, if investors start to worry again about growth. In the longer run, however, the dollar looks expensive relative to purchasing power parity (Chart 14), and interest-rate differentials no longer favor it as they have done over much of the past decade (Chart 15). BCA Research’s FX strategists recommend a barbell strategy in currencies, with Overweights in cheap cyclical currencies such as the Canadian dollar and Norwegian krone, as well as safe havens such as the yen.4 Chart 14Dollar Is Expensive... Chart 15...And No Longer Benefits From Higher Rates Commodities: After the extraordinary behavior of near-month WTI futures in April, the crude price should settle down. BCA Research’s energy strategists argue that renewed production cuts from Saudi Arabia and Russia, combined with a near-normalization in demand in H2, should push crude-oil balances back into a supply deficit by Q3 (Chart 16). Chart 16Oil Price Should Rise In H2 They forecast Brent to rise to $42 a barrel by the end of 2020, compared to $24 now. Industrial metals prices have generally remained depressed, despite the recovery in risk assets (Chart 17). But the effects of Chinese stimulus, combined with a weaker dollar, should cause them to recover later in the year (Chart 18). Gold remains a good hedge against further economic shocks or an eventual resurgence in inflation. Chart 17Metal Prices Haven't Recovered... Chart 18...But Should Soon Benefit From Chinese Stimulus Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation, “Quarterly Portfolio Outlook: Playing The Optionality,” dated April 1, 2020. 2 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low," dated April 28, 2020. 3 Bonds that have recently been downgraded from investment grade to sub-investment grade. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "QE And Currencies," dated April 17, 2020. GAA Asset Allocation
Highlights The six-month increase in European bank credit flows amounts to an underwhelming $70 billion, compared to a record high $660 billion in the US and $550 billion in China. Underweight European domestic cyclicals versus their peers in the US and China. Specifically, underweight euro area banks versus US banks. Overweight equities on a long-term (2 years plus) horizon. The mid-single digit return that equities are offering makes them attractive versus ultra-low yielding bonds. But remain neutral equities on a 1-year horizon, until it becomes clear that we can prevent a second wave of the pandemic. Fractal trade: long bitcoin cash, short ethereum. Feature Chart I-1Bank Credit 6-Month Flow Up $70 Bn ##br##In The Euro Area… Chart I-2…But Up $700 Bn ##br##In The US Governments and central banks are dishing out an alphabet soup of stimulus. The question is: how much is reaching those that need it? Our preferred approach to assessing monetary stimulus is to focus on the evolution of bank credit flows and bond yields over a six-month period. Bank Credit Flows Have Surged In The US And China, Not In Europe On our preferred assessment, Europe’s monetary stimulus is underwhelming compared with that in the US and China. The six-month increase in US bank credit flows, at $660 billion, is the highest in a decade and not far from the highest ever. In China, the equivalent six-month increase is $550 billion. But in the euro area, the six-month increase in bank credit flows amounts to an underwhelming $70 billion (Charts I-1 - Chart I-4). Chart I-3Bank Credit 6-Month Flow Up $550 Bn In China… Chart I-4...And Up ##br##Globally Admittedly, US firms are drawing on pre-arranged bank credit lines rather than taking out new loans. Furthermore, the link between bank credit flows and final demand might be compromised during the current economic shutdown. For example, if firms are borrowing to pay workers who are not producing any output, then the transmission of a credit flow acceleration to a GDP acceleration would be weakened. Europe’s monetary stimulus is underwhelming compared with that in the US and China. Nevertheless, some bank credit flows will still reach the real economy. And the US and China are creating more bank credit flows than Europe. Focus On The Deceleration Of The Bond Yield Turning to the bond yield, it is important to focus not on its level, and not on its decline. Instead, it is important to focus on its deceleration. The focus on the deceleration of the bond yield sounds counterintuitive, but it results from a fundamental accounting identity. The next two paragraphs may seem somewhat technical but read them carefully, as they are important for understanding the transmission of stimulus. GDP is a flow. It measures the flow of goods and services produced in a quarter. Hence, GDP receives a contribution from the flow of credit. The flow of credit, in turn, is established by the level of bond yields. When we talk about stimulating the economy, we mean boosting the GDP growth rate from, say, -1 percent to +1 percent, which is an acceleration of GDP. This acceleration in the GDP flow must come from an acceleration in the flow of credit. This acceleration in the flow of credit, in turn, must come from a deceleration of bond yields. In other words, the bond yield decline in the most recent period must be greater than the decline in the previous period. Banks tend to perform better after bond yields have decelerated. The good news is that in the US and China, bond yields have decelerated; the bad news is that in Europe, they have not. Over the past six months, the 10-year bond yield has decelerated by 40 bps in the US and by 65 bps in China. Yet in France, despite the coronavirus crisis, the 10-year bond yield has accelerated by 60 bps (Charts I-5 - Chart I-8).1 Chart I-5The Bond Yield Has Accelerated ##br##In The Euro Area... Chart I-6...Decelerated ##br##In The US... Chart I-7...Decelerated In China... Chart I-8...And Decelerated Globally European bond yields are struggling to decelerate because of their proximity to the lower bound to bond yields, at around -1 percent. The inability to decelerate the bond yield constrains the monetary stimulus that Europe can apply compared to the US and China, whose bond yields are much further from the lower bound constraint. Compared to Europe, the US and China have much stronger decelerations in their bond yields and much stronger accelerations in their bank credit flows. This suggests underweighting European domestic cyclicals versus their peers in the US and China. Specifically, banks tend to perform better after bond yields have decelerated; and they tend to perform worse after bond yields have accelerated. On this basis, underweight euro area banks versus US banks (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Banks Perform Better After Bond Yields Have Decelerated, Worse After Bond Yields Have Accelerated Long-Term Asset Allocation Is Straightforward, Shorter-Term Is Not The level of the bond yield, or of so-called ‘financial conditions’, does not drive the short-term oscillations in credit flows. To repeat, it is the acceleration and deceleration of the bond yield that matters. Yet when it comes to the long-term valuation of assets, the level of the bond yield does matter, and when the bond yield is ultra-low it matters enormously. An ultra-low bond yield justifies a much lower prospective return on competing long-duration assets, like equities. The reason is that when bond yields approach their lower bound, bond prices can no longer rise, they can only fall. This higher riskiness of bonds justifies an abnormally low (or zero) ‘risk premium’ on equities. In this world of ultra-low numbers – for both bond yields and equity risk premiums – the low to mid-single digit long-term return that equities are offering makes them attractive versus bonds (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Equities Are Offering Mid-Single Digit Long-Term Returns But this long-term valuation argument only works for those with long-term investment horizons. What does long-term mean? There is no clear dividing line, but we would define long-term as two years at the very minimum. For a one-year investment horizon, the much more important question is: what will happen to 12-month forward earnings (profits)? In the stock market recessions of 2008-09 and 2015-16, the stock market reached its low just before forward earnings reached their low. Assuming the same holds true in 2020-21, we must establish whether forward earnings are close to their low or not. In 2008-09, world forward earnings collapsed by 45 percent. In the current recession, which is putatively worse, world forward earnings are down by less than 20 percent to date. To have already reached the cycle low in forward earnings with only half the decline of 2008, the current recession needs to be much shorter than the 2008-09 episode (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11In The Global Financial Crisis, Forward Earnings Collapsed By 45 Percent Chart I-12In The Current Crisis, Forward Earnings Are Down 20 Percent. Is That Enough? Whether this turns out to be the case or not hinges on the pandemic and our response to it. A controlled easing of lockdowns will boost growth as more of the economy comes back to life. But too rapid an easing of lockdowns will unleash a second wave of the pandemic, requiring a second wave of economic shutdowns, a double dip recession and a new low in the stock market. Hence, if you have a long-term (2-year plus) investment horizon, the choice between equities and bonds is very straightforward: overweight equities. On this long-term horizon, German and Swedish equities are especially attractive versus negative-yielding bonds. On a 1-year investment horizon, the key question is: can we avoid a second wave of the pandemic? But if you have a 1-year investment horizon, the choice is less straightforward, because it hinges on whether we can avoid a second wave of the pandemic or not. Until it becomes clear that governments will not reopen economies too quickly, remain neutral equities on the 1-year horizon. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is a pair-trade within the cryptocurrency asset-class. Long bitcoin cash / short ethereum. Set the profit target at 21 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. The 12-month rolling win ratio now stands at 61 percent. Chart I-13Bitcoin Cash Vs. Ethereum When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In the US, the 10-year bond yield has declined by 120 bps in the past six months compared with 80 bps in the preceding six months, which equals a deceleration of 40 bps; in China, the 10-year bond yield has declined by 73 bps in the past six months compared with 18 bps in the preceding six months, which equals a deceleration of 65 bps; but in France, the 10-year bond yield has increased by 12 bps in the past six months compared with a 48 bps decline in the preceding six months, which equals an acceleration of 60 bps. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Inflation-Linked Bonds: The plunging price of oil has put renewed downward pressure on global bond yields via lower inflation expectations. With oil prices set to recover over the next 6-12 months as the global economy awakens from the COVID-19 slumber, depressed market-derived inflation expectations can move higher across the developed markets – most notably in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Favor inflation-linked government bonds versus nominals in those countries on a strategic (6-12 months) basis. UK Corporates: The Bank of England (BoE) is supporting the UK investment grade corporate bond market with an unprecedented level and pace of purchases, with credit spreads at attractive levels. Upgrade UK investment grade corporates to overweight on a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Across sectors, favor debt from sectors such as non-bank Financials and Communications that are less exposed to pandemic-related uncertainty but still benefit from BoE buying. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Link Between Oil & Bond Yields Remains Strong The shocking, albeit brief, journey of the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil price benchmark below zero last week was another in a long line of stunning market moves seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those negative oil prices were technical in nature and lasted all of one day, but the ramifications for global bond markets of the falling cost of oil in 2020 have been more enduring. Government bond yields have largely followed the ebbs and flows in energy markets for most of the past decade, and this year has been no exception (Chart of the Week). That link from oil has been through the inflation expectations component of yields, which have been (and remain) highly correlated to oil prices in virtually every developed market country. This is likely due to the persistent low global inflation backdrop since the 2008 financial crisis, which has made cyclical swings in energy prices the marginal driver of both realized and expected inflation. Chart 2BCA's Commodity Strategists Expect Oil Prices To Recover Our colleagues at BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy now anticipate higher oil prices over the next 12-18 months.1 Global growth is expected to recover from the COVID-19 recession sooner (and faster) than global oil production, helping to improve the demand/supply balance in energy markets and boost oil prices (Chart 2). Our energy strategists expect the benchmark Brent oil price to rise to $42/bbl by the end of 2020 and $78/bbl by the end of 2021. Those are big moves compared to the current spot price around $20/bbl, and would impart significant upward pressure on inflation expectations if the history of the past decade is any guide. That kind of move in oil prices should also help lift overall nominal government bond yields. Although the real (inflation-adjusted) component of yields is likely to remain low as major central banks like the Fed and ECB will remain highly accommodative, even when growth and inflation begin to recover, given the severity of the COVID-19 global recession. With market-based inflation expectations now at such beaten-up levels, and with the disinflationary effect of falling energy prices set to fade, we see an opportunity to play for a cyclical rebound in inflation breakevens across the developed markets by favoring inflation-linked government bonds versus nominal yielding equivalents. A Simple Framework For Finding Value In Inflation Breakevens Given the remarkably tight correlation between oil prices and market-determined inflation expectations in so many countries, it should be fairly straightforward to model the latter using the former as the main input. We have developed a series of fair value regressions for breakevens in the major developed countries which do exactly that. In this simple approach, we attempt to model the 10-year breakeven from inflation-linked bonds for eight countries – the US, the UK, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Canada and Australia - as a function of a short-run variable (oil prices) and a long-run variable (the trend in realized inflation). Specifically, we are using the annual percentage change in the Brent oil price benchmark in local currency terms (i.e. converted from US dollars at spot exchange rates) as the short-run variable and a five-year moving average of realized headline CPI inflation as the long-run variable. The latter is included to provide an “anchor” for breakevens based on the actual performance of inflation in each country. In other words, expectations about what inflation will look like in the future are informed by what it has done in the past – what economists refer to as “adaptive” expectations. The generic regression equation used for each country is: 10-year inflation breakeven = α + β1 * (annual % change of Brent oil price in local currency terms) + β2 * (60-month moving average of headline CPI inflation) In Table 1, we present the results of the regressions of each of the eight countries, which use weekly data dating back to the start of 2012 to capture the period when oil prices have most heavily influenced inflation expectations. The coefficients, R-squareds and standard errors of the regressions are all shown, as well as the most recent model residual (i.e. the deviation of 10-year inflation expectations from model-determined fair value). All the coefficients for each model are significant. The R-squareds of the models vary, with the models for France and Australia doing the best job of explaining changes in inflation expectations in those two countries. Table 1Details Of Our New 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Models For the UK and Japan, we added an additional “dummy” variable to control for the unique situations that we believe have influenced inflation breakevens in those countries. For the UK, the period since the June 2016 Brexit vote has seen the path of inflation expectations stay nearly 50bps higher than implied by moves in GBP-denominated oil prices and the trend in actual UK inflation. For Japan, the period since the Bank of Japan initiated its Yield Curve Control policy in September 2016 has seen breakevens stay nearly 60bps below fair value as derived from JPY-denominated oil prices and the trend in actual Japanese inflation. Bond investors with longer-term investment horizons looking to play for a global growth recovery from the COVID-19 recession over the next 12-18 months should position for some widening of breakevens by favoring inflation-linked bonds over nominal paying government debt. In Charts 3 to10 over the next four pages, we show the models for each country. 10-year inflation breakevens versus the independent variables in the models are shown in the top two panels, the model fair value is presented in the 3rd panel, and the deviation from fair value is in the bottom panel. In all cases, breakevens are below fair value, suggesting that inflation-linked bonds look relatively attractive versus nominal government bonds. Chart 3Our US 10-Year TIPS Breakevens Model Chart 4Our UK 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 5Our France 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 6Our Italy 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 7Our Japan 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 8Our Germany 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 9Our Canada 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 10Our Australia 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Model Chart 11Real Inflation-Linked Bond Yields Will Remain Subdued For Longer The largest deviations from fair value can be found in Canada (-70bps), Australia (-48bps), the UK (-29bps), and the US (-26bps). 10-year breakevens are also below fair value in the euro zone countries and Japan, but not by more than one standard deviation as is the case for the other four countries. Bond investors with longer-term investment horizons looking to play for a global growth recovery from the COVID-19 recession over the next 12-18 months should position for some widening of breakevens by favoring inflation-linked bonds over nominal paying government debt. Focus on the four markets with breakevens furthest from fair value, although from a market liquidity perspective it is easier to implement those positions in the US and UK, which represent a combined 69% of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Inflation-Linked bond index. A rise in inflation expectations should also, eventually, put some sustained upward pressure on nominal bond yields. We would rather play that initially by positioning for higher inflation breakevens, rather than having outright below-benchmark duration exposure, as developed market central banks will stay accommodative for longer given the severity of the COVID-19 recession - that will keep real bond yields lower for longer (Chart 11). Breakevens from inflation-linked bonds are now too low across the developed markets – most notably in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Bottom Line: The plunging price of oil has put renewed downward pressure on global bond yields via lower inflation expectations. With oil prices set to recover over the next 6-12 months as the global economy starts to awaken from the coronavirus induced slumber, breakevens from inflation-linked bonds are now too low across the developed markets – most notably in the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Favor linkers over nominals in those countries. Where Is The Value In UK Corporate Bonds? Chart 12Upgrade UK IG Corporates To Overweight On BoE Buying The Bank of England (BoE) initiated its Corporate Bond Purchase Scheme (CBPS) in August 2016 as part of a package of stimulus measures to cushion the economic blow from the UK’s vote to exit the European Union. As we noted in recent joint report with our sister service, BCA Research US Bond Strategy,2 the CBPS helped tighten spreads by lowering downgrade and default risk premiums and also helped spur corporate bond issuance (Chart 12). Shortly after that report was published, the BoE announced that it would be purchasing a further £10 billion in investment grade nonfinancial corporate bonds in the coming months, doubling the scheme’s aggregate holdings to £20 billion. In addition, the bank would make these purchases at a significantly faster pace than in 2016, which implies a faster transmission towards tightening of spreads. Compared to other central bank peers, however, the BoE’s program still has room to expand, which makes UK investment grade credit attractive over tactical and strategic investment horizons. Using the market value of the Bloomberg Barclays UK corporate bond index (excluding financials) as a proxy for the total value of eligible bonds, the CBPS is on track to own roughly 9% of all eligible bonds by the time the £20 billion target is reached. The neighboring European Central Bank, on the other hand, already owns 23% of the stock of eligible euro area corporate bonds in its market, and that figure is only set to increase with policymakers set to do “whatever it takes” to backstop the investment grade market. Year-to-date, UK corporate bonds appear to have recovered somewhat from the panicked selloff earlier this quarter (Table 2), with the Bloomberg Barclays UK investment grade corporate bond index down only -0.3% in total return terms. In excess return terms relative to duration-matched UK corporate bonds, however, the index is down -5.2%, indicating that weakness has persisted in the pure credit component. Table 2UK Investment Grade Corporate Bond Returns At the broad sector level, Other Industrials appear to be the outlier, having delivered positive excess returns (+0.6%) and significant total returns (+16%). These returns are not nearly as attractive, however, on a risk-adjusted basis once you consider that this sector has an index duration more than three times that of the overall index.3 Outside of that sector, the best performers, in excess return terms, are predominantly the more “defensive” sectors—Utilities (-3.4%), Technology (-3.7%), Communications (-4.2%) and Consumer Non-Cyclical (-4.6%). Meanwhile, the sectors most exposed to vanishing consumer demand and weak global growth have performed the worst—Transportation (-9.5%), Capital Goods (-7%), Energy (-6.8%), and Basic Industry (-6.2%). Credit spreads in the UK indicate that the market has already begun to stabilize in response to the BoE’s new round of corporate bond purchases. Credit spreads in the UK indicate that the market has already begun to stabilize in response to the BoE’s new round of corporate bond purchases (Chart 13). The overall index spread, although still elevated at 228bps, has already tightened by 57bps from the peak in late March. The gap between the index spreads of Baa-rated and Aa-rated UK debt remained relatively stable through the wave of sell-offs, peaking at +53bps, below the 2019 high of +55bps, and settling now to +36bps. Outside the purview of the CBPS, however, the situation is a bit rockier, with the overall high-yield index spread +590bps above that of the investment grade index. Broadly speaking, there is a clear disparity between those credit tiers that have the support of the monetary authorities and those that do not. Investment grade spreads will continue to tighten as the BoE rapidly increases its holdings of investment grade corporate bonds. However, high-yield bonds remain exposed to downgrade/default risk and ongoing uncertainty stemming from the COVID-19 economic shock. To drill down into which credit tier spreads offer the most value within the UK investment grade space, we use the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings. This is one of the tools we use to assess value in global credit spreads, as measured by historical “spread cushions”. Specifically, we calculate how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus duration-matched government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. Chart 14 shows the 12-month breakeven spread percentile rankings for all the credit tiers in the UK investment grade space. Aaa-rated debt appears most unattractive, with the spreads currently ranking below the historical median. Between the other three tiers, Aa-rated debt offers the most value, although all three are at historically attractive levels. Chart 13UK IG Has Held Up Well During The COVID-19 Shock Chart 14UK IG Breakeven Spreads Look Most Attractive For Aa-Rated Bonds On the sector-level, the disparity in spreads is most clearly visible in the sectors most exposed to the pandemic. In Charts 15 & 16, we show the history of option-adjusted spreads (OAS) for the major industrial sub-groupings of the Bloomberg Barclays UK investment grade corporate index. Spreads look widest relative to history for sectors such as Energy and Transportation, while spread widening has been contained in more insulated sectors such as Financials. Chart 15A Mixed Performance For UK IG By Sector In 2020 … Chart 16… But Spreads, In General, Remain Below Previous Cyclical Peaks Another way to assess value across UK investment grade corporates is our sector relative value framework. Borrowing from the methodology used for US corporate credit by our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy, the sector relative value framework determines “fair value” spreads for each of the major and minor industry level sub-indices of the overall UK investment grade universe. The methodology takes each sector's individual OAS and regresses it in a cross-sectional regression with all other sectors. The dependent variables in the model are each sector's duration, 12-month trailing spread volatility and credit rating - the primary risk factors for any corporate bond. Using the common coefficients from that regression, a risk-adjusted "fair value" spread is calculated. The difference between the actual OAS and fair value OAS is our valuation metric used to inform our sector allocation ranking. We see this as an opportune time to upgrade our recommended allocation for UK investment grade corporates to overweight. The latest output from the UK relative value spread model can be found in Table 3. We also show the duration-times-spread (DTS) for each sector in those tables, which we use as the primary way to measure the riskiness (volatility) of each sector. The scatterplot in Chart 17 shows the tradeoff between the valuation residual from our model and each sector's DTS. Table 3UK Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation Chart 17UK Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Valuation Versus Risk We can then apply individual sector weights based on the model output and our desired level of overall spread risk to come up with a recommended credit portfolio. The weights are determined at our discretion and are not the output from any quantitative portfolio optimization process. The only constraints are that all sector weights must add to 100% (i.e. the portfolio is fully invested with no use of leverage) and the overall level of spread risk (DTS) must equal our desired target. Amid a backdrop of global uncertainty, we reiterate one of our major themes this quarter—buy what the central banks are buying. Given that UK corporate spreads are attractive on a breakeven basis, and with the BoE purchasing corporate debt at an even faster pace than during the volatile period following the shock Brexit vote in 2016, we see this as an opportune time to upgrade our recommended allocation for UK investment grade corporates to overweight. This is both on a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic basis (6-12 months). In our model bond portfolio, we have added two percentage points to our recommended UK corporate bond allocation, funded by reducing further our existing underweight on Japanese government bonds. At the sector level, given this positive backdrop for credit performance, we do not see a need to favor lower risk sectors with a DTS score below that of the overall UK investment grade index. On that basis, we are looking to go overweight sectors with higher relatively higher DTS and positive risk-adjusted spread residuals from our relative value model (and vice versa). Those overweight candidates would ideally be located in the upper right quadrant of Chart 17. Based on the latest output from the relative value model, the strongest overweight candidates are the following UK investment grade sectors: selected Financials (Insurance, Subordinated Bank Debt, and Other Financials), Media Entertainment, Cable Satellite, Tobacco, Diversified Manufacturing, and Communications. The least attractive sectors within this framework are: Packaging, Lodging, REITs, Other Industrials, Metals, Natural Gas, Restaurants, Transportation Services, Financial Institutions, and Midstream Energy. Bottom Line: The BoE is supporting the UK investment grade corporate bond market with an unprecedented level and pace of purchases. Spreads have already begun to tighten in response but are still at attractive levels. Upgrade UK investment grade corporates to overweight on a tactical (0-6 months) and strategic (6-12 months) basis. Across credit tiers, favor Aa-rated debt. Across sectors, favor debt from sectors such as non-bank Financials and Communications that are less exposed to pandemic-related uncertainty but still benefit from the CBPS. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate shaktis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "US Storage Tightens, Pushing WTI Lower", dated April 16, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA US Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis", dated March 31 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Other Industrials has an index duration of 28.6 years, compared to 8.5 years for the overall UK investment grade corporate bond index. 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 Portfolio Strategy We remain comfortable with a 3,000 SPX fair value estimate backed up by our DDM, forward ERP and sensitivity analyses. The path of least resistance remains higher for the SPX on a 9-12 month cyclical time horizon. The oil price collapse is eliciting a massive supply response that should help rebalance the oil markets, and coupled with glimmers of hope on reopening the economy, it should put a floor under oil prices. CB are injecting unprecedented amounts of liquidity in the markets and at some point this will lead to a growth revival which is negative for gold prices. Taken together, and given all-time lows in relative valuations and technicals, we are compelled to go long US oil & gas exploration & production stocks at the expense of global gold miners. We are putting the S&P managed health care index on downgrade alert to reflect the risk that rising unemployment poses to health care enrollment. Falling interest rates also weigh on industry profitability at a time when relative valuations are perky and technicals are overbought. Recent Changes Initiate a long S&P oil & gas exploration & production/short global gold miners pair trade, today. Table 1 Feature Equities marked time last week, despite the passage of a fresh mini fiscal 2.0 package and efforts to restart the economy in parts of the globe. In contrast, news that President Trump may delay reopening the economy along with negative crude oil prices weighed heavily on the S&P 500. Nevertheless, energy equities fared very well, defying the oil market carnage and impressively relative energy share prices have led the SPX trough (Chart 1). We remain constructive on the broad equity market on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. Following up from last week’s SPX dividend discount model (DDM) update, we complement our research with two additional ways of approximating the SPX fair value: EPS and multiple sensitivity analysis and a forward equity risk premium (ERP) analysis. While at the nadir the stock market priced in a collapse in EPS close to $104 for the current year (please refer to our analysis here1), in 2021 EPS can return to their long-term trend line near $162. At first sight this spike in EPS seems unrealistic. However, here are two salient points: Chart 1Energy As A Leading Indicator First, hard-hit COVID-19 subsectors are a small fraction of SPX profits and market capitalization. In other words, the S&P 500 is a market cap weighted index and has already filtered out hotels, cruises, restaurants, homebuilders, autos, auto parts, airlines, and even energy as they comprise a small part of the SPX. Second, historical precedents show an explosive year-over-year growth increase in EPS from recessionary troughs. In fact, the steeper the collapse the more violent the rebound. Hence, our recovery EPS estimate is more or less in line with empirical evidence (Chart 2). Chart 2Violently Oscillating EPS For comparison purposes, the Street is still penciling in EPS near $135 and $170 for 2020 and 2021, respectively. Table 2 shows our sensitivity analysis and an SPX ending value of just above 2,900 using $162 EPS and an 18x forward multiple as our base case. This multiple is slightly below the historical time trend using IBES data dating back to 1979, and represents our fair value PE estimate (please see page 17 of our April 6, 2020 webcast2 available here). Table 2SPX EPS & Multiple Sensitivity With regard to the forward ERP analysis, our starting point is an equilibrium ERP of 440 basis points (bps). The way we derived this number was using the last decade’s average observed forward ERP (middle panel, Chart 3). We used to think equilibrium ERP was closer to 200bps. However, if the Fed’s extraordinary – and unorthodox – measures since the onset of the GFC did not manage to bring down the ERP (middle panel, Chart 3), then in the current recession with uncertainty on the rise, it only makes sense to model a higher than previously thought equilibrium ERP (middle panel, Chart 4). Chart 3The Forward Equity Risk Premium… Chart 4…Will Recede And, just to put the forward ERP in perspective, keep in mind that it jumped from 350bps to just below 600bps year-to-date (Chart 4)! A doubling in the 10-year US treasury yield to 120bps is another assumption we are making along with using our trend EPS estimate of $162 for calendar 2021. Backing out price results in a roughly 2,900 SPX fair value estimate (Table 3). Table 3Forward Equity Risk Premium Analysis We remain comfortable with a 3,000 SPX fair value estimate backed up by our DDM, forward ERP and sensitivity analyses. Despite the much needed current consolidation phase, the path of least resistance is higher for the SPX on a 9-12 month cyclical time horizon. This week we are putting a health care subgroup on downgrade alert and initiating a high-octane intra-commodity market-neutral pair trade to benefit from the looming handoff of liquidity to growth. Time To Buy “Black Gold” At The Expense Of Gold Bullion We have been long and wrong on the S&P energy sector and its subcomponents, as neither we nor our Commodity & Energy Strategists anticipated -$40/bbl WTI crude oil futures prices. Nevertheless, as the energy sector is drifting into oblivion within the SPX – it is now the second smallest GICS1 sector with a 2.77% market cap weight slightly higher than materials – we think that WTI May contract reaching -$40/bbl marked the recessionary trough. Similar to the early-2018 “volmageddon” incident when a volatility exchanged trade product blew up and got dismantled and marked that cyclical peak in the VIX, the recent near collapse of USO and shuttering of another oil related levered exchange traded product serve as the anecdotes that likely mark the low in oil prices. True, negative WTI futures prices are no longer taboo and the CME prepared for them by reprograming its systems to handle negative futures prices, thus they can happen again. With regard to the significance of anecdotes in market tops and bottoms, another interesting one that comes to mind is from our early days at BCA in May of 2008 where we worked for the Global Investment Strategy team as a senior analyst. Back then, we vividly remember a Goldman Sachs analyst slapping a $150/bbl target on crude oil,3 and only days later in unprecedented hubris Gazprom’s CEO upped the ante with an apocalyptic $250/bbl prediction.4 This prompted us to create our first mania chart at BCA with crude oil prices on June 20, 2008 (please see chart 16 from that report available here5), which proved timely as oil prices peaked less than a month later at $147/bbl. Today, we are compelled to perform the opposite exercise and run a regression of previous equity sector market crashes on the S&P oil & gas exploration & production index (E&P, that most closely resembles WTI crude oil prices) in order to gauge a recovery profile. Chart 5 suggests that if the anecdotes are accurate in calling the trough in oil prices, then E&P stocks should enjoy a steep price appreciation trajectory in the coming two years. Beyond the overweights we continue to hold in the S&P energy sector and all the subgroups we cover, we believe that there is an exploitable trading opportunity to go long S&P E&P/short global gold miners (Chart 6). Chart 5Heed The US Equity Strategy’s Crash Index Message This high-octane trade is extremely volatile, but the recent carnage in the oil markets offers a great entry point for investors that can stomach heightened volatility, with an enticing risk/reward tradeoff. The gold/oil ratio (GOR) is trading at 112 as we went to press and we think that it will have to settle down. The Fed is doing its utmost to dampen volatility, and historically, suppressed volatility has been synonymous with a falling GOR (Chart 7). As a result, our pair trade will have to at least climb back to its recent breakdown point, representing a near 34% return (top panel, Chart 6). Chart 6Buy E&P Stocks At The Expense Of Gold Miners From a macro perspective the time to buy oil equities at the expense of gold miners is when there is a handoff from liquidity to growth (bottom panel, Chart 6). While we are still in the liquidity injection phase we deem the Fed and other Central Banks (CB) are committed to do “whatever it takes” to sustain the proper functioning of the markets. Therefore, at some point likely in the back half of the year when the economy slowly reopens, all these CB programs will bear fruit and growth will recover violently (middle panel, Chart 6), especially given our long-held view that the US will avoid a Great Depression. Chart 7VIX Says Sell The GOR With regard to balancing the oil market, nothing like price to change behavior. In more detail, the recent collapse in oil prices will work like magic to bring some semblance of normality back to the crude oil market, as it will naturally cause a shut in of production; there is no doubt about it. Not only has the supply response commenced, but it is also accelerating to the downside as the plunging rig count depicts (Chart 8). This will lead to some longer-term bullish oil price ramifications. As a reminder, while demand drives prices in the short-term, supply dictates the oil price direction in the long-term. Chart 8Oil Price Collapse Induced Supply Response Turning over to gold and gold miners, all this liquidity is forcing investors to chase bullion and related equities higher. Tack on that every CB the world over is trying to debase their currency, and factors are falling into place for sustainable flows into gold and gold mining equities. However, there are high odds that all this money sloshing around will eventually generate growth especially in the western hemisphere that is slowly contemplating of restarting its economic engines. As a result, real yields will rise which in turn is negative for gold and gold miners (Chart 9). Finally, relative valuations and technicals could not be more depressed, which is contrarily positive (Chart 10). Chart 9Liquidity To Growth Handoff Beneficiary Netting it all out, the oil price collapse is eliciting a massive supply response that should help rebalance the oil markets, and coupled with glimmers of hope on reopening the economy, it should put a floor under oil prices. CB are injecting unprecedented amounts of liquidity in the markets and at some point this will lead to a growth revival which is negative for gold prices. Taken together, and given all-time lows in relative valuations and technicals, we are compelled to go long US oil & gas exploration & production equities at the expense of global gold miners. Chart 10As Bad As It Gets Bottom Line: Initiate a long US oil & gas exploration & production/short global gold miners pair trade today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: BLBG: S5OILP – COP, EOG, HES, COG, MRO, NBL, CXO, APA, PXD, DVN, FANG, (or XOP:US exchange traded fund) and GDX:US exchange traded fund, respectively. Put HMOs On Downgrade Alert We upgraded the S&P managed health care index last April, the Monday after Bernie Sanders re-introduced his “Medicare For All” bill.6 Our thesis was that the drubbing in this sector was a massive overreaction and we, along with our Geopolitical Strategists, thought that he would have low chances of clinching the Democratic Presidential candidacy and threatening to render HMOs obsolete. A year later, this thesis has panned out and the S&P managed care index is up 30% versus the S&P 500. Nevertheless we do not want to overstay our welcome and are putting it on our downgrade watch list and instituting a 5% rolling stop in order to protect gains in our portfolio (top panel, Chart 11). Relative share prices have broken out to fresh all-time highs, not only courtesy of a more moderate Democratic Presidential candidate, but also because a significant boost to margins and profits is looming. The delayed effect of fewer elective procedures (i.e. hip and knee replacements and even non-life threatening bypass surgeries) owing to the coronavirus pandemic will result in a sizable, yet temporary, margin expansion phase (second panel, Chart 11). Tack on, still roughly 20% health care insurance CPI and the outlook for HMO margins and profits further improves (bottom panel, Chart 11). Nevertheless, there are some negative offsets. Over the past 5 weeks unemployment insurance claims have soared to 26.5mn, erasing all the employment gains of the past decade, thus private insurance enrollment will take a sizable hit (top panel, Chart 12). Chart 11The Good… Chart 12…And The Bad Moreover on the income side, the premia that HMOs take in are typically invested in the risk free asset and given the two month fall from 1.5% to around 0.6% in the 10-year Treasury yield, managed health care earnings will also, at the margin, suffer a setback (bottom panel, Chart 12). True, the HMOs earnings juggernaut has been one of a kind over the past decade underpinning relative share prices (top panel, Chart 13). However, we reckon a lot of the good news and very little if any of the bad news is priced in extremely optimistic relative profit expectation going out five years (middle panel, Chart 13). Keep in mind that the bulk of the M&A activity is behind this industry as the dust has now settled from the previous two year frenzied pace of inter and intra industry combinations (top panel, Chart 14). Chart 13Lots Of Good News Is Already Priced In Chart 14Preparing Not To Overstay Our Welcome Finally, relative technicals are in overbought territory close to one standard deviation above the historical mean and relative valuations are also becoming a tad too lofty for our liking (middle & bottom panel, Chart 14). Adding it all up, we are putting the S&P managed health care index on downgrade alert to reflect the risk that rising unemployment poses to health care enrollment. Falling interest rates also weigh on industry profitability at a time when relative valuations are perky and technicals are overbought. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P managed health care index, but it is now on our downgrade watch list. We are also instituting a rolling 5% stop as a portfolio management tool in order to protect profits. Stay tuned. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH-UNH, ANTM, HUM, CNC. Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “What Is Priced In?” dated March 30, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.icastpro.ca/events/bca/2020/04/06/us-equity-market-what-the-future-holds/play/16925 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/business/21oil.html 4 https://www.reuters.com/article/gazprom-ceo/russias-gazprom-sees-higher-gas-prices-ceo-idUSL1148506420080611 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Strategy Outlook - PART 1 - Third Quarter 2008” dated June 20, 2008, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Show Me The Profits” dated April 15, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth May 10, 2018 Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%) June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).
Highlights Q1/2020 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark by -40bps during the first quarter of the year – a number that would have been far worse if not for the changes in exposures for duration (increased) and spread product (decreased) made in early March. Winners & Losers: Underperformance was concentrated in sovereign debt, US Treasuries in particular (-94bps), as yields plummeted. This detracted from the outperformance in spread product (+51bps) led by US investment grade corporates (+34bps) and emerging markets (+20bps). Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: Given the ongoing uncertainty over when the COVID-19 pandemic and economy-crushing global lockdown will end, we are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure. Instead, we recommend focusing more on country allocation and spread product relative value to generate outperformance, favoring markets where there is direct involvement from central banks. Feature Global bond markets were roiled in the first quarter of 2020 by the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Government bond yields crashed to all-time lows while volatility reached extremes across both sovereign debt and credit. The quick, coordinated policy response from global monetary and fiscal authorities – which includes unprecedented levels of direct central bank asset purchases, both in terms of size and the breadth across markets and counties - has helped stabilize global credit spreads and risk assets, more generally. The outlook remains highly uncertain, however, with many governments worldwide looking to reopen their collapsed economies, risking the potential resurgence of a virus still lacking effective treatment or a vaccine. We are focusing more on relative value between counties and sectors. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the eventful first quarter of 2020. We also present our updated recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months. The main takeaway there is that we are focusing more on relative value between counties and sectors while staying close to benchmark on both overall global duration and spread product exposure versus government bonds (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months Chart 1Q1/2020 Performance: Lagging, But It Could Have Been Much Worse As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2020 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: A Missed Rally In Sovereigns, Outperformance In Credit The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the first quarter was -0.1%, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -40bps (Chart 1).1 That relative underperformance came from the government bond side of the portfolio, while our spread product allocation outperformed the benchmark. US Treasuries underperformed the most (-91bps) with losses concentrated in the +10 year maturity bucket. (Table 2). After US Treasuries, euro area high-yield corporates were the second worst performer, underperforming the benchmark by -10bps. Outperformance in spread product was driven by US investment grade industrials (+22bps) and EM credit (+20bps). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Overall Return Attribution The potential losses to our model portfolio were greatly mitigated by changes in positioning during the quarter. Our decision to raise overall global duration exposure to neutral at the beginning of March helped shield the portfolio as yields plummeted.2 We followed this by upgrading sovereign debt in the US and Canada, both higher-beta countries, to overweight while moving to an underweight stance on US high-yield debt, euro area investment-grade and high-yield debt, and emerging market (EM) USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt.3 In an environment of rampant uncertainty, these allocation changes helped prevent catastrophic losses in the model portfolio that had previously been positioned for a pickup in global growth. The potential losses to our model portfolio were greatly mitigated by changes in positioning during the quarter. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -91bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +51bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector The most significant movers were: Biggest Outperformers Overweight US investment grade industrials (+22bps) Underweight euro area investment grade corporate bonds (+16bps) Underweight EM USD-denominated corporates (+12bps) Overweight US investment grade financials (+10bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (+8bps) Biggest Underperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (-36bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 3-5 years (-17bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-16bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 1-3 years (-13bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-12bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2020. The returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1/2020 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral).4 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. Predictably, government debt performed the best in Q1/2020 as global bond yields fell and monetary authorities raced to support economies and inject liquidity. UK, US, and Canadian government debt delivered the best returns this quarter. While we started the year neutral or underweight those assets, we moved to an overweight allocation in March, which helped salvage some returns. Also worth noting is that Australian government debt, where we have maintained a structural overweight stance, was one of the top performing markets during the first quarter. The deepest losses were sustained in EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt, and euro area high-yield. Although it seems a distant memory at this point, we did start this quarter on an optimistic note and expected spreads on these products to narrow as global growth picked up. However, we were able to shield our portfolio against excessive losses in these products by moving to an underweight stance in March once the severity of the COVID-19 global economic shock become apparent. Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index during the first quarter of the year. The underperformance was concentrated in government bonds, which rallied on the back of the global pandemic. However, the portfolio outperformed the benchmark in spread products, where the combination of massive fiscal/monetary easing and direct central bank asset purchases have brought credit spreads under control. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Typically, in these quarterly performance reviews of our model bond portfolio, we attempt to make return forecasts for the portfolio based off scenario analysis and quantitative predictions of various fixed income asset classes. In the current unprecedented economic and financial market environment, however, we are reluctant to rely on model coefficients and correlations to estimate expected returns. Instead, in this report, we will focus on discussing the logic behind our current model portfolio positioning and how those allocations should expect to contribute to the overall portfolio performance over the next six months. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: Our recommended overweight stance on US spread product that is backstopped by the Fed—US investment grade corporates, Agency CMBS, and Ba-rated high-yield; Our recommended overweight stance on relatively higher-yielding sovereigns like the US and Italy; Our recommended underweight stance on EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns, where the specter of defaults and liquidity crunches looms. In terms of specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we have moderated our stance on global spread product since our previous review of the portfolio.5 While the monetary liquidity backdrop is highly bullish, with central banks aggressively buying bonds and keeping policy rates at the zero lower bound, it is still unclear if and when economies will be able to successfully reopen and put an end to the COVID-19 recession. We are now recommending only a small relative overweight of two percentage points for spread product versus the benchmark index (Chart 5), leaving room to add more should the news on the virus and global growth take a turn for the better. Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Slightly Overweight Credit We also remain neutral on overall portfolio duration exposure. Our Global Duration Indicator, which contains growth data like our global leading economic indicator and the global ZEW expectations index, has plunged and is signaling bond yields will stay depressed over the next six months (Chart 6). Yet at the same time, yields in most countries have been unable to hit new lows after the panic-driven bond rally in late February and early March, even as global oil prices have collapsed and inflation expectations remain depressed, suggesting that yields already discount a lot of bad news. Chart 6Our Duration Indicator Is Signaling Government Bond Yields Will Stay Low We do not see much value in taking a big directional bet on yields through overall duration exposure at the present time. We also think it is far too early to contemplate reducing duration – even with many global equity and credit markets having rallied sharply off the lows – given the persistent uncertainty over the timing of a recovery in global growth. Thus, we are maintaining a neutral overall portfolio exposure (Chart 7). Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: At Benchmark Chart 8Country Allocation: Favor Those With Higher Betas To Global Yields Within the government bond side of the model bond portfolio, we recommend focusing more on country allocation to generate outperformance. That means concentrating exposures in relatively higher yielding markets like the US, Canada and peripheral Europe while maintaining underweights in core Europe and Japan, where yields have relatively little room to fall. That allocation also lines up with the sensitivity of each market to changes in the overall level of global bond yields, i.e. the yield beta (Chart 8). By favoring those higher beta markets, the model portfolio would still benefit from a renewed leg down in global bond yields, while still maintaining an overall neutral level of portfolio duration. By favoring those higher beta markets, the model portfolio would still benefit from a renewed leg down in global bond yields. Turning to spread product allocations, we recommend focusing more on policymaker responses to the COVID-19 recession rather than the downturn itself. Yes, the earlier widening of global high-yield spreads is forecasting a sharp plunge in global growth and rising unemployment rates (Chart 9, top panel). At the same time, the now double-digit year-over-year growth in global central bank balance sheets - a measure that has led global high-yield bond excess returns by one year in the years after the Global Financial Crisis (bottom panel) – is pointing to a period of improved global corporate bond market performance over the next 6-12 months. Chart 9Global Corporate Performance Should Benefit From Global QE In other words, we are focusing on global QE rather than global recession, while maintaining a modest recommended overall weighting on global spread product. Chart 10Credit Allocation: Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying That allocation could be larger, but we suggest picking the lowest hanging fruit in the credit universe rather than going for the highest beta credit markets. That means concentrating spread product allocations on the parts of global credit markets where central banks are directly buying (Chart 10). We are focusing on global QE rather than global recession, while maintaining a modest recommended overall weighting on global spread product. In the US, that means overweighting US investment grade corporate bonds (particularly those with maturities of less than five years), US Ba-rated high-yield that the Fed is now allowed to hold in its corporate bond buying program, and euro area investment grade corporate bonds (excluding bank debt) that the ECB is also buying in its increased bond purchase programs. Chart 11Stay Underweight EM Credit One new change we are making this week is upgrading US agency commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) to overweight, funding by a reduction in US agency residential mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to underweight. While the Fed is still buying agency MBS debt in its new QE programs, MBS spreads have already compressed substantially and are now exposed to potential refinancing risk as eligible US homeowners look to take advantage of the recent plunge in US mortgage rates. We prefer to increase the allocation to agency CMBS, which the Fed can now buy within its expanded QE programs and which offer more attractive spreads than agency MBS (middle panel). One part of the spread product universe where we continue to recommend an underweight stance is USD-denominated EM corporate and sovereign debt. The time to buy those markets will be when the US dollar has clearly peaked and global growth has clearly bottomed. Neither of those conditions is in place now, with the price momentum in both the EM currency index and the trade-weighted US dollar still tilted towards a stronger greenback. That backdrop is unlikely to change in the next few months, suggesting a defensive stance on EM credit is still warranted (Chart 11). A defensive stance on EM credit is still warranted. Model bond portfolio yield and tracking error considerations The selective global government bond and credit portfolio we have just outlined does not come without a cost. While we are currently overweight countries with higher-yielding government bonds, our underweight positions on riskier spread product like EM debt and lower-rated US junk bonds bring the yield of our model portfolio down to 1.8%, –15bps below the yield of the model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 12). We feel that is an acceptable level of “negative carry” given the still heightened levels of uncertainty over global growth. This leads us to focus more on relative value between countries and sectors to generate outperformance that we expect to offset the impact of underweighting the highest yielding credit markets. Chart 12Portfolio Yield: Moderately Below Benchmark Chart 13Portfolio Volatility: Currently High, But Expected To Fall Finally, turning to the risk budget of the model portfolio, we are aiming for a “moderate” overall tracking error, or the gap between the portfolio’s volatility and that of the benchmark index. However, given our pro-risk positioning in the first two months of 2020, combined with the extreme volatility in markets during the first quarter, the realized portfolio tracking error blew through our self-imposed ceiling of 100bps (Chart 13). We expect this to settle down in the coming months as the recent changes in our positioning start to be reflected in the trailing volatility of our portfolio. Bottom Line: Given the ongoing uncertainty over when the COVID-19 pandemic and economy-crushing global lockdown will end, we are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure. Instead, we recommend focusing more on country allocation and spread product relative value to generate outperformance, favoring markets where there is direct involvement from central banks. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate shaktis@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, "What Bond Investors Should Do After The 'Great Correction'", dated March 3 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Train Is Empty", dated March 10, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q1/2020 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Praise Credit & Blame Duration", dated January 14, 2020, available at 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 Duration: While it’s possible that we are close to the US economic trough, we don’t see any immediate upside in Treasury yields. Investors should keep portfolio duration at benchmark and await signs of recovery in our preferred global growth indicators. Spread Product: Investors should buy spread products that offer attractive spreads relative to history and that benefit from Fed support. We favor: Aaa non-agency CMBS, Agency CMBS, Aaa ABS, municipal bonds and investment grade corporate bonds. High-Yield: We recommend an overweight allocation to Ba-rated high-yield corporates and an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds rated B and lower. Ba-rated bonds will benefit from Fed support and value in the B-rated and below credit tiers does not adequately compensate for likely default losses. Feature Chart 1Fed Actions Spur Rally Even though the economy remains closed and most of us are still confined to our homes, the mood in financial markets has shifted during the past few weeks. Risk assets are rallying as investors react to a cresting in the number of new COVID-19 cases and an unprecedented fiscal and monetary response. Since the Fed announced that it would step into the corporate bond market on March 23, equities have outpaced Treasuries by 28% and high-yield bonds have beaten the Treasury benchmark by 15% (Chart 1). Treasury securities initially rallied after the landmark Fed announcement but have only kept pace with cash during the past two weeks (Chart 1, bottom panel). This reversal in markets begs the question: Is the bottom already in? In this week’s report we ask that question about several different US bond sectors. Too Early To Call The Bottom In Treasury Yields At least in the Treasury market, we think it is premature to call the bottom in yields. Chart 2The Depths Of The Downturn In prior reports we outlined a checklist to call the trough in Treasury yields.1 Two of the items on that checklist were: a severe deterioration in the US economic data and signs of economic recovery in the rest of the world, particularly in those places where the pandemic struck first – like China. We are certainly now seeing the bad US economic data. The Economic Surprise Index is just off its all-time low and a composite of 10 high-frequency economic indicators compiled by the New York Federal Reserve is at its lowest point since the series began in 2008 (Chart 2). Similarly, weekly initial jobless claims set a record three weeks ago. Though they remain extremely elevated, new claims have declined in each of the past two weeks (Chart 2, bottom panel). All this at least raises the possibility that we are close to the trough in US economic growth. However, our second criterion of improving demand outside the US, particularly in China, has not been met. This is crucial because bond investors will need to see that there is light at the end of the tunnel before concluding that US economic activity will trend higher. China’s Manufacturing PMI bounced to just above 50 in March, suggesting that only a small majority of firms experienced better economic conditions in March compared to February. China’s credit impulse is advancing, demonstrating that policymakers are pumping a large amount of stimulus into the economy. But high-frequency growth barometers – like the CRB Raw Industrials index, the performance of cyclical versus defensive equity sectors and the trend in Emerging Market currencies – all remain downbeat (Chart 3). Bond investors will need to see improving demand outside the US before concluding that US economic activity will trend higher. For Treasury yields, the broad CRB Raw Industrials commodity benchmark is particularly important. This is because the ratio between the CRB index and the price of gold closely tracks the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 4). In a typical economic downturn, we first see Treasury yields and the CRB index fall together as global demand weakens. Then, monetary policy responds by turning more accommodative, leading to a rebound in the price of gold as investors start to reckon with the potential long-run inflationary impact of monetary stimulus. Eventually, bond yields will bottom. But this will only occur once the stimulus seeps through to the real economy and gains in the CRB index start to outpace gains in gold. Chart 3No Global Growth Recovery Yet Chart 4Track The CRB/Gold Ratio The dynamic described above means that we should expect Treasury yields to lag risk assets as the market bottoms. In other words, we will see a sustained rebound in equity prices and corporate bond excess returns before Treasury yields move meaningfully higher. This is especially true in this cycle because the Fed has indicated that it will be slow to shift away from its accommodative policy stance. Bottom Line: While it’s possible that we are close to the US economic trough, we don’t see any immediate upside in Treasury yields. Investors should keep portfolio duration at benchmark and await signs of recovery in our preferred global growth indicators. To hedge against the risk of higher Treasury yields without making a large duration bet, investors should implement duration-neutral curve steepeners. We recommend going long the 5-year bullet and short the duration-matched 2/10 barbell.2 Is The Bottom In For Investment Grade Spread Product Excess Returns? We hesitate to call the bottom in overall spread product returns versus Treasuries. However, we do see many buying opportunities in specific US fixed income sectors. In deciding which sectors to own, we advise investors to search for sectors that: (A) Have attractive spreads and (B) Benefit from one or more of the Fed’s recently announced programs We described each of the Fed’s different lending facilities in last week’s Special Report, and will not repeat that exercise this week.3 Instead, we run through a list of sectors where we think spreads have already peaked and that bond investors should own today. Aaa CMBS Aaa-rated CMBS, both non-agency and agency-backed, meet our two criteria of offering attractive spreads and benefiting from Fed support (Chart 5). The Aaa non-agency CMBS index spread is 119 bps wider than at the end of 2019, and the securities can be used as collateral under the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF). Specifically, bondholders can borrow from TALF against their Aaa non-agency CMBS collateral at a rate of OIS + 125 bps (Chart 5, panel 2). TALF will also impose a haircut of around 15% on CMBS collateral. Chart 5Buy Aaa CMBS Agency-backed CMBS are even more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. The Agency CMBS index spread is 50 bps above its end-2019 level and the Fed is directly purchasing Agency CMBS as part of its ongoing mortgage-backed securities purchases. As of April 15, the Fed had purchased $5.7 billion of Agency CMBS since it announced CMBS purchases on March 23. The outstanding par value of the Bloomberg Barclays Agency CMBS index is about $204 billion. If the Fed’s current pace of purchases continues for one year, it will own just under half of the index’s par value. Aaa ABS Though the spread is not quite as attractive as for Aaa non-agency CMBS, the spread on Aaa-rated consumer ABS is 115 bps wider since the end of 2019 (Chart 6). As with CMBS, this sector also benefits from TALF with an interest rate of OIS + 125 bps, and an even smaller haircut. Chart 6Buy Aaa Consumer ABS & Munis Municipal Bonds We also like the opportunity in municipal bonds. Spreads between Aaa-rated municipal bond yields and Treasuries have come down off their recent all-time highs but remain attractive compared to historical levels (Chart 6, bottom panel). The Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) offers direct 2-year loans to state & local governments. This will provide a back-stop for municipal debt with a maturity of 2 years or less but will also help municipalities meet interest payments on longer-maturity bonds when they are due. Aaa-rated CMBS, both non-agency and agency-backed, meet our two criteria of offering attractive spreads and benefiting from Fed support. We would therefore advise investors to buy municipal bonds at both the short and long ends of the curve. We also do not rule out further Fed measures to support the municipal bond market in the coming weeks, possibly even secondary market bond purchases. The amount of Fed support for state & local governments so far is much less than what is being done for the corporate sector. There is also no convincing moral hazard argument against scaling-up support for investment grade rated munis, especially when the Fed is already supporting some parts of the high-yield corporate market. Investment Grade Corporates As mentioned above, the Fed is providing an exceptional amount of policy support to the investment grade corporate bond market, mainly through three facilities: The Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) that will purchase corporate bonds and ETFs in the secondary market. The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) that will purchase new bond issues in the primary market. The Main Street New and Expanded Lending Facilities (MSNLF & MSELF) that will purchase corporate loans from banks, removing them from bank balance sheets. All three of these facilities support the investment grade corporate bond market, and investment grade corporate spreads remain elevated compared to history across all credit tiers (Chart 7). Chart 7Buy Investment Grade Corporates Bottom Line: Investors should buy spread products that offer attractive spreads relative to history and that benefit from Fed support. We favor: Aaa non-agency CMBS, Agency CMBS, Aaa ABS, municipal bonds and investment grade corporate bonds. Have High-Yield Spreads Already Peaked? In the high-yield market we follow the same rules we applied in the previous section. We want to buy sectors that have attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. Within high-yield, the Ba credit tier meets these criteria as it offers an elevated spread and loans to Ba-rated issuers are eligible under the MSNLF and MSELF. The SMCCF will also purchase some high-yield ETFs and both the SMCCF and PMCCF will purchase securities that were recently downgraded to Ba from Baa. However, for the most part, securities rated B and below will not benefit from the Fed’s new facilities and thus will trade purely on fundamentals.4 This demarcation between securities rated Ba and above and those rated B and below is already showing up in excess returns. Since the Fed first announced corporate bond purchases on March 23, Ba-rated junk bonds have outperformed Treasuries by 16.88%, beating B-rated bonds (13.84%), Caa-rated bonds (9.53%) and the lowest Ca/C-rated credit tier (6.85%) (Table 1). Table 1Corporate Bond Performance Since Announcement Of Fed Purchases Assessing High-Yield Fundamentals Even without Fed support, lower-tier junk bonds are still worth buying if spreads provide adequate compensation for expected defaults. We assessed the likely magnitude of the looming default cycle in a recent Special Report.5 One main conclusion from that report is that, due to elevated corporate sector leverage, the recovery rate on defaulted debt will likely be low during the next 12 months – on the order of 20-25%. Second, based on the expected magnitude and duration of the current economic shock, we expect a significant surge in the speculative grade corporate default rate during the next 12 months, likely hitting a range of 9%-13%. Even without Fed support, lower-tier junk bonds are still worth buying if spreads provide adequate compensation for expected defaults. With these default loss assumptions in hand, we can see what sort of buffer is priced into different high-yield credit tiers. Charts 8-10 show calendar-year excess returns for Ba, B and Caa-C high-yield credit tiers on the vertical axes. On the horizontal axes, the charts show the index spread at the start of the 12-month investment horizon less realized default losses over the course of the year.6 Chart 8Ba Default-Adjusted Spread Chart 9B Default-Adjusted Spread Chart 10Caa-C Default-Adjusted Spread We first observe that a Default-Adjusted Spread below 200 bps usually coincides with negative excess returns for all three credit tiers. In fact, for the Caa-C tier, we’d like to see a Default-Adjusted Spread above 500 bps before going long. Second, the green diamonds in all three charts identify likely outcomes for the next 12 months in three different default loss scenarios. The “Mild Scenario” is defined as a 6% speculative grade default rate and 25% recovery rate. The “Moderate Scenario” is defined as a 9% speculative grade default rate and 25% recovery rate. The “Severe Scenario” is defined as a 12% default rate and 25% recovery rate.7 Based on those choices, we’d place our base case default loss assumptions for the next 12 months somewhere between the Moderate and Severe scenarios. Charts 8-10 clearly show that, while Ba-rated issuers might still perform decently, the B-rated and below credit tiers are not priced at all for our base case default outlook. Note that this analysis does not consider Fed support in any way. Factoring that in, Ba-rated bonds look even better compared to bonds rated B and below. Bottom Line: We recommend an overweight allocation to Ba-rated high-yield corporates and an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds rated B and lower. Ba-rated bonds will benefit from Fed support and value in the B-rated and below credit tiers does not adequately compensate for likely default losses. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When And Where Will Bond Yields Trough?”, dated March 10, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on why we recommend this yield curve positioning please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Life At The Zero Bound”, dated March 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 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 4 As we noted in last week’s Special Report, some B-rated issuers will benefit from the MSELF. But this support is minor compared to what is being offered to securities rated Ba and higher. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis”, dated March 31, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 We use Ba and Caa-C default losses for those credit tiers. For B-rated bonds, we found that overall speculative grade default losses work slightly better than default losses for the B credit tier specifically. 7 We use historical correlations to translate overall speculative grade default rate assumptions into default rate assumptions for the Ba and Caa-C credit tiers. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Our conservative dividend growth assumptions especially for the next three years – largely mimicking the GFC experience – result in an SPX 3,000 fair value target. Relative performance already reflects the jump in demand for packaged foods. A firm US dollar and an ongoing profit margin squeeze at a time when relative valuations have returned to the historical mean compel us to downgrade the S&P packaged foods index to neutral. An upward trending demand profile, a fortress of a balance sheet, exemplary recession resilience, and sustained M&A activity, all warrant an overweight stance in the S&P software index. Recent Changes Trim the S&P packaged foods index to neutral today, which pushes the S&P consumer staples sector to a benchmark allocation. Boost the S&P software index to overweight today, which lifts the S&P tech sector to a benchmark allocation. Table 1 Feature The SPX jumped to a five-week high last week, on the back of news that the economy will gradually reopen next month. In other news, GILD’s remdesivir drug showed some positive early signs in fighting off the coronavirus, sparking an impressive late-week rally in the SPX. From a macro perspective, flush monetary liquidity and extremely easy fiscal policy remain the dominant market forces. While we remain confident that equities will be higher on a 9-12 month cyclical time horizon, we believe that the easy money since the March 23 lows has already been made and a consolidation phase now looms. Thus, monetizing some of these gains would make sense at the current juncture. Keep in mind that the SPX, junk spreads and the CBOE’s put/call ratio have returned to their respective means since 2018 (horizontal lines denote the historical averages, Chart 1). Tack on the stiff resistance that the S&P 500 will face near the 50-day and 100-week moving averages, and a lateral move is likely in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, in our seminal report “SPX 3,000?” on July 10, 2017 we introduced our SPX dividend discount model (DDM) when we first came up with the SPX 3,000 target.1 It is now custom to update our DDM every April when the previous year’s annual S&P 500 dividend payment is finalized from the Standard & Poor’s. Chart 1Consolidation Mode Chart 2Dividends Rule As a reminder, we have been and remain very conservative in our DDM assumptions. Again this year we assume that no buybacks will occur, a long held assumption of ours, i.e. we pencil in a steady divisor in the coming five-year time frame. 2025 is our terminal year when dividend growth settles at 6.6%, 60bps below the long-term average (bottom panel, Chart 2). Our 8.2% discount rate mirrors the corporate junk bond yield historical average. This year we use two different dividend growth approaches: our own estimates and alternatively the S&P 500 dividend futures derived growth. In the spirit of conservatism, we pick the lowest point hit in early April across the different dividend futures expirations. Tables 2 & 3 summarize the results. In the dividend futures derived approach, SPX fair value is close to 2,110. Granted, such dividend contractions for two years running (33% in 2020 and 14% in 2021, Table 2) are extreme and highly unlikely. Moreover, dividend futures have since rebounded violently. However, we stick with them to derive our worst case SPX value. Table 2SPX Dividend Discount Model: Using S&P Dividend Futures Growth Assumptions Our own dividend growth estimates result in an SPX 3,000 fair value target (Table 3). While our assumptions are not as dire as the nadir in dividend futures, they are slightly more conservative than the GFC experience. As a reminder, in the aftermath of the GFC dividends contracted by 20% in 2009 and then recovered rising by 1% and 16% in 2010 and 2011, respectively (please click here if you would like to receive our DDM and insert your own assumptions). Table 3SPX Dividend Discount Model: Using USES Dividend Growth Assumptions Building up on this analysis, we want to identify sectors that are at risk of a dividend cut, and thus pose the greatest threat to our SPX dividend projections. Table 4 shows the 2019 sectorial dividends, profits, and the payout ratio along with indebtedness. While during the Great Recession financials cut their handsome dividends, the current recession is not a financial crisis and we doubt the financials sector will cut their dividends, at least not as aggressively as in the GFC (Table 5). Table 4S&P 500 GICS1 Sector Dividend Analysis Table 5The GFC S&P 500 GICS1 Sector Dividend Experience Energy is a clear standout, but neither XOM nor CVX will forego their dividend aristocrat status (minimum 25 consecutive years of rising dividends) and chop their dividends. In other words, these Oil Majors will do everything in their power including raising debt to ever so modestly increase their dividends and maintain their aristocrat status. Thus, $24bn of energy sector related dividends are safe or 55% of the overall energy sector’s dividend. Keep in mind that the energy sector increased their dividends in the GFC (Tables 4 & 5). Industrials (GE is no longer a big dividend payer), materials, real estate and select consumer discretionary are sore spots, but not large enough to undermine the SPX (Table 4). Tech, health care and consumer staples are in excellent shape and judging by JNJ’s and COST’s recent dividend hikes, these sectors that enjoy mostly pristine balance sheets may even increase their payouts as they did during the GFC (Tables 4 & 5). While utilities and telecom services are debt saddled, their defensive stature and stable cash flow streams along with their history of steady dividend payments also do not pose a real threat to the SPX’s dividend (Tables 4 & 5). This leaves financials as the key sector to monitor for a possible large inflicted wound to the SPX dividend. In the most adverse scenario where the Fed instructs banks to eliminate their dividends, as the BoE and the ECB recently did in Europe, then the SPX dividend will contract, but only by 15%, ceteris paribus. This is because last year the tech sector had the highest dividend weight in the SPX and also because the financials sector’s dividend weight has fallen from 30% in 2007 to 15% in 2019 (Tables 4 & 5). Netting it all out, we are comfortable with our dividend growth assumptions especially for the next three years – largely mimicking the GFC experience – and resulting in an SPX 3,000 fair value target. The path of least resistance for the SPX remains higher on a 9-12 month cyclical time horizon. However, given that the easy SPX gains from the March 23, 2020 lows – when we turned cyclically bullish2 – have been made, opportunistic/nimble investors could monetize at least a part of these massive one-month returns. As aforementioned the SPX may face resistance near the 50-day moving average where it attempts to consolidate its recent gains. This week we are downgrading a defensive group to neutral and boosting a deep cyclical group to an above benchmark allocation. Turning Stale Following up from last week’s report, we heed the message from our research to be wary of staples stocks at the depth of the recession and downgrade the S&P packaged foods index to neutral. This move also pushes the S&P consumer staples sector down to a benchmark allocation from previously overweight. While this defensive index had been severely bruised from the accounting scandal at Kraft/Heinz, it has really flexed its safe haven muscles year-to-date. We use this opportunity to trim exposure down to neutral as we deem that this relative advance has run out of steam, despite the once in a lifetime jump in a number of key demand indicators. Chart 3 shows that food & beverage store retail sales now garner 17% of total retail sales a percentage last hit in the early 1990s. Impressively, not only did industry sales rise in absolute terms, but also overall retail sales suffered a severe setback accentuating last month’s spike. Similarly, food output hit a high mark last month, outpacing overall industrial production that came to a standstill. Food products resource utilization also soared, outpacing overall capacity utilization by 10% (bottom panel, Chart 3). As a result, relative share price momentum came close to accelerating by triple digits on a short-term rate of change basis (Chart 4). While such euphoria is warranted, we reckon that most if not all the good news is already reflected in prices, especially given the early signs of a possible reopening of the US economy some time next month. Importantly, sell side analyst optimism has climbed to a similar height observed in late-2015/early-2016 when industry 12-month forward EPS were slated to outshine the broad market by over 10% (bottom panel, Chart 4). Chart 3Demand Boost… Chart 4…Is Already Baked In Worrisomely, despite the rising demand profile, operating margins have been drifting lower over the past decade and a further profit margin squeeze remains a high probability outcome (Chart 5). Finally, on the food export front, the rising US dollar is warning that volumes will remain in check in coming quarters (greenback shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 6). All of this is reflected in valuations that have returned to the 25-year mean with packaged food manufacturers now trading at a 9% forward P/E premium to the broad market (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Margin Trouble Chart 6Past Expiry Date In sum, relative performance already reflects the jump in demand for packaged foods. A firm US dollar and an ongoing profit margin squeeze at a time when relative valuations have returned to the historical mean compel us to downgrade the S&P packaged foods index to neutral. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P packaged foods index to neutral, today for a loss of 20% since inception. This downgrade also pushes the S&P consumer staples sector to neutral for a loss of 11% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PACK – MDLZ, SJM, KHC, CPB, MKC, CAG, TSN, GIS, HSY, HRL, K, LW. Boost Software To Overweight We recently monetized over 50% relative gains in our overweight in the S&P software index, but today we are compelled to lift this heavyweight tech sub-index back to an overweight stance. One key reason for our renewed bullishness is that for the second time in the past 15 months, software stocks managed to eke out relative gains when the broad market fell peak-to-trough 20% and 35% in late-2018 and in Q1/2020, respectively (Chart 7). This resilience on the way down confirms both the defensive stature of this services tech subgroup and simultaneously our long held belief that when growth is scarce investors will flock to secular growth stocks. Chart 7Recession Proof As a result and following up from our recent data processing upgrade, another defensive services tech group, we are compelled to augment exposure to the S&P software index to overweight. Last week we showed that the tech sector (along with financials and consumer discretionary) best the broad market from the recessionary troughs onward, signaling that the key software sub group will likely lead the recovery.3 Software investment is on a multi decade upward trajectory and is slated to rise further in coming quarters as overall spending takes the back seat, but defensive software capex remains resilient (Chart 8). Not only do corporate executives upgrade software in downturns as these upgrades yield near instantaneous return on investment and are immediately productivity enhancing, but also the push to cloud-based services will only accelerate during the ongoing recession (bottom panel, Chart 8). Tack on that the global coronavirus social distancing measures are also boosting demand for remote working services specifically, and software sales will continue to grind higher (Chart 9). Chart 8Capex Market Share Gains Chart 9Rising Demand Buoys Sales Meanwhile, industry M&A remains robust and both the number of deals are still rising at a brisk rate and the premia paid remain near historically high levels (Chart 10). Contrary to a slew of corporations that have announced dividend cuts and equity buyback suspensions, pristine software balance sheets underscore that shareholder friendly activities will remain in place, if not accelerate, during the current recession (bottom panel, Chart 10). Chart 10What’s Not To Like? Chart 11Model Says Buy Our macro-based software EPS growth model does an excellent job in capturing all these moving forces and it is signaling that industry profits will continue to expand at a healthy pace for the rest of the year, in marked contrast to the broad market’s expected profit contraction (Chart 11). Adding it all up, an upward trending demand profile, a fortress of a balance sheet, exemplary recession resilience, and sustained M&A activity, all bode well for an earnings-led outperformance phase in the S&P software index. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P software index to overweight, today. This upgrade also lifts the S&P tech sector to neutral for a loss of 5% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT – MSFT, ADBE, CRM, ORCL, INTU, NOW, ADSK, ANSS, SNPS, CDNS, FTNT, PAYC, CTXS, NLOK. Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “SPX 3,000?” dated July 10, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, ““The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn”” dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Fight Central Banks At Your Own Peril” dated April 14, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth May 10, 2018 Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%) June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).