Fixed Income
Highlights Don’t trust market inflation expectations or real interest rates. When inflation is near-zero, think in nominal terms not in real terms. New structural recommendation: Underweight inflation protected bonds versus conventional bonds. For the time being stay overweight stocks versus bonds, but sell stocks if the 10-year T-bond yield rises by 0.3 percent. We address four concerns about inflation raised by clients. Fractal trade: short copper versus gold. Don’t Trust Market Inflation Expectations Or Real Interest Rates Are the markets any good at predicting inflation? No, they are not (Chart of the Week). Both the inflation forwards market and the breakeven inflation rate implied in inflation protected bonds have been lousy predictors of inflation.1 We can forgive that. What we cannot forgive is how these markets derive their inflation forecasts. Chart of the Week AThe Markets Are Lousy At Predicting Inflation Chart of the Week BThe Markets Are Lousy At Predicting Inflation Expected inflation in the UK just tracks the commodity price index (Chart I-2), and expected inflation in the US just tracks the oil price (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). This link between expected inflation and the level of commodity prices is absurd, for three reasons: Chart I-2UK Bond Markets' Expected Inflation Just Tracks Commodity Prices Chart I-3US Bond Markets' Expected Inflation Just Tracks The Oil Price Chart I-4US Inflation Swaps' Expected Inflation Just Tracks The Oil Price Inflation measures a change in a price. Therefore, inflation expectations should not track the price level of anything. Even if expected inflation is incorrectly tracking a price level, a lower price today will increase the scope for future inflation, and vice-versa. Hence, any relationship with the current price level should be an inverse relationship, not a positive relationship. Most absurd of all, how can the level of commodity prices today conceivably forecast the inflation rate five years ahead through 2026-31, as the inflation forwards seem to be suggesting? There are two important takeaways from the absurdity of inflation expectations. First, it follows that the market’s estimates of the real interest rate must also be lousy, and taken with a huge dose of salt. The market’s estimates of the real interest rate must be taken with a huge dose of salt. Second, as the market’s inflation expectations just track commodity prices, the relative performance of UK index-linked gilts versus conventional gilts just tracks commodity prices too (Chart I-5); and the performance of US TIPS versus T-bonds just tracks the oil price. Nothing more and nothing less (Chart I-6). As we expect the structural bear market in commodities has much further to run, the structural recommendation for bond investors is: Chart I-5UK Index-Linked Gilts Vs. Conventional Gilts = Commodity Prices Chart I-6US TIPS Vs. T-Bonds = The Oil Price Underweight inflation protected bonds versus conventional bonds. When Inflation Is Near-Zero, Think In Nominal Terms Not In Real Terms If the market is lousy at predicting long-term inflation, then it might also be lousy at predicting the long-term nominal return on equities. After all, shouldn’t prospective inflation impact the prospective 10-year nominal return on equities? The surprising answer is no. The prospective 10-year nominal return on the stock market depends only on the stock market’s starting valuation. The 10-year nominal return on the stock market does not depend on prospective inflation, it depends only on the stock market’s starting valuation. The same relationship between the stock market’s starting valuation and prospective nominal return applied in the high-inflation 1970s and 1980s as it did in the low-inflation 2000s (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Stock Market's Starting Valuation Establishes The Prospective Nominal Return, Irrespective Of The Inflation Backdrop The reason is that the stock market’s 10-year nominal return has two components: the income through the 10 years, and the terminal value at the end of the 10 years. When inflation is high, the income component is larger, but the terminal value component is smaller – because in an inflationary environment the market will demand a higher subsequent return, requiring a lower price. When inflation is low, the opposite is true: lower income, but higher terminal value. These effects cancel out, so the result is a prospective nominal return that is independent of prospective inflation. Crucially, the required prospective return on equities in excess of bonds is also established in nominal terms. This is because the bond yield’s lower limit is nominal, at say -1 percent. Proximity to this nominal yield limit makes bonds very risky because there is no longer any upside to price, only downside. Witness Swiss bonds this year. As the riskiness of equities and bonds converges, the required prospective nominal return on equities collapses towards the ultra-low bond yields. The upshot is that both the prospective return on equities and the required prospective return on equities should always be calculated in nominal terms, never in real terms. Right now, the high valuation of the aggregate stock market means a very low prospective nominal return, and this valuation is hypersensitive to ultra-low bond yields (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8The Stock Market Is Priced To Generate A Feeble Long-Term Return Chart I-9AUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time Chart I-9BUltra-Low Bond Yields Have Created The Greatest Asset-Price Inflation Of All Time For the time being stay overweight stocks versus bonds, but as we warned two weeks ago, Sell Stocks If The Bond Yield Rises By 0.3 Percent. Four Concerns About Inflation Raised By Clients In this section, which is in question and answer format, we will address four concerns about long-term inflation that our clients have raised. 1, Isn’t the unprecedent fiscal stimulus in 2020 setting us up for inflation down the road? No, not in itself. Understand that the unprecedented stimulus is in response to unprecedented shocks to incomes that have come from the rolling waves of the pandemic. As incomes disappeared, governments provided income-substitution. As and when incomes reappear, governments will withdraw the income-substitution. Indeed, the UK government tried to withdraw its income-substitution (furlough) scheme prematurely and had to backtrack when the virus resurged. This illustrates that the unprecedented fiscal stimulus is a much-needed stabiliser of the economy, rather than a source of inflation. 2. But if governments want a bit of inflation, they can get it, can’t they? No. Understand that inflation is a non-linear system with two states, price stability and price instability. You can shift between these two states, but you cannot get a ‘little bit of inflation’ in a controlled fashion, or hit an arbitrary inflation target like 2 percent, 3 percent, or 5 percent. This is something that we have been arguing for years, and it is comforting that some great thinkers – like (the late) Paul Volker and William White – fully support our non-linear system thesis. You cannot get a ‘little bit of inflation’ in a controlled fashion. Any government can take its economy into the state of price instability if it so chooses. Witness Turkey and Argentina. But price stability is the much better state to be in. Given that developed economies have expended decades of blood, sweat, and tears to reach the state of price stability, we think that it would be a monumental policy error to embark on the road to price instability (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Inflation Is A Non-Linear System With Two States, Price Stability And Price Instability 3. But doesn’t rampant Argentina-type inflation bail out the heavily indebted? No, not necessarily. It will only bail you out if your debt is a one-off lump sum payment in the distant future. If your debt requires ongoing refinancing, then inflation will not bail you out, because the refinancing interest rate could rise in line with, or even faster than, the inflation rate. Therefore, those highly indebted governments, firms, and households that need to refinance their debts would not benefit from rampant inflation. 4. In which case, isn’t the solution to let inflation rip while keeping interest rates depressed – so-called ‘financial repression?’ No. While it is conceivable that a government could corner its government bond market and thereby repress it, it would be near-impossible to repress the much larger asset-classes of equities and real estate. Once these large and privately priced markets sniffed out the government’s nefarious plan, the required prospective nominal return would surge as a compensation for the higher inflation. The result being an almighty crash in stock and real estate markets. Given that the near $500 trillion combined worth of such markets dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, the impact of such a crash would make this year’s pandemic feel like a waltz in the park. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is short copper versus gold, given that the spectacular relative outperformance is showing fragility in both its 65-day and 130-day fractal structures. The profit target and symmetrical stop-loss is set at 10 percent. Chart I-11Copper Vs. Gold In other trades, long RUB/CZK reached the end of its holding period with a marginal partial loss. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 53 percent. 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 Europe and the US have deep and liquid markets in 5-year 5-year inflation swaps (or forwards), which price the expected 5-year inflation rate 5 years ahead. The current swap measures the annual inflation rate expected through 2026-31. The UK and the US also have deep and liquid markets in inflation-protected government bonds: UK index-linked gilts, and US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). The yield offered on such a security is real, which means in excess of inflation. The yield offered on a similar-maturity conventional bond is nominal. This means that the difference between the two yields equates to the market’s expectation for inflation over the maturity, known as the ‘breakeven inflation rate.’ 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
Although the onshore corporate bond market is under stress, BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy service concludes that it will not be the force that buckles Chinese equities. Recent bond payment defaults by several SOEs have led to a spike in onshore…
While the near-term inflation risk is limited, various forces point toward expanding odds of higher long-term inflation. The broadening preference among the population toward greater government involvement in the economy suggests that fiscal deficits will…
The strength in China’s post-pandemic policy support likely peaked in October. Interbank rates have normalized to their pre-pandemic levels and bond yields have risen sharply since May. The renewed emphasis on financial de-risking is evident in China’s recent anti-trust regulations against domestic leading online retail and lending providers, rising corporate bond defaults and readouts from recent PBoC meetings. In the near term, US President-elect Joe Biden will focus on reviving the economy and this may restore some balance to the Sino-US trade relationship. Additionally, China’s economic recovery is on track. The odds are rising that next year the Chinese leadership will accelerate structural reforms and the de-risking campaign, which began in 2017 but was delayed due to the US-China trade war and the COVID pandemic. These policy actions will improve China’s productivity growth and industrial competitiveness in the medium to long term, but they will create short-term headwinds to the economic recovery and the stock market’s performance. The uptrend in China’s business cycle will likely be maintained for another two quarters, propelled by the momentum from this year's massive stimulus. Historically, turning points in China’s business activities lag credit cycles by six to nine months. Given that China’s policy support apexed in Q4 this year, a peak in the country’s business cycle will probably be reached by mid-2021. Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Below is a set of market relevant charts along with our observations: Monetary policy has tightened, but fiscal spending by local governments should pick up in the next two quarters to support the ongoing business cycle expansion into H1 2021. Fiscal spending has been constrained due to shortfalls in revenues this year, despite record sales of special-purpose bonds.1 Government expenditures will gain strength as local governments’ tax revenues start to improve and the proceeds from bond sales are distributed. Chart 1Credit Impulse Has Peaked... Chart 3Business Cycle Expansion To Continue In 1H21 Chart 2...But Fiscal Spending Should Pick Up Part of the buildup in this year’s industrial inventory is due to the solid recovery in domestic demand and proactive restocking by manufacturers. However, the pace of inventory pileup this year has been the highest since 2014, while infrastructure investment and industrial output growth have barely recovered to pre-pandemic levels. The rapid expansion in industrial inventory may be the result of cheap credit and commodity prices and could lead to a period of destocking and slower imports of raw materials in Q1 2021. Chart 4Industrial Inventory Has Run Ahead Of Economic Recovery... Chart 5...Propelled By Solid Recovery And Cheap Credit Core CPI has reached its weakest level in more than a decade, while the PPI remains in negative territory. A delayed recovery in the household consumption and services sector has been disinflationary to core CPI along with the PPI’s consumer goods price subcomponent.2 Historically, when the growth rate in the PPI outpaces that in the CPI, industrial output and profits tend to improve even if the PPI is in contraction. However, a deflationary PPI is the result of depressed demand for both industrial products and household goods. Hence, neither the widening gap between the PPI and CPI nor the improvement in industrial profits can be sustained on the back of falling consumer prices. Credit impulse tends to lead an increase in both the PPI and CPI by six to nine months. Improving service sector activities and rebounding energy and commodity prices will also be reflationary to both the CPI and the PPI. Meanwhile, the peaking credit impulse coupled with tighter domestic monetary policy and a rapidly rising RMB will limit the upside in both the consumer and producer price indexes. Chart 6Rising Deflation Risks Chart 7PPI Has Been Dragged Down By Its Consumer Goods Price Component Chart 8Improvement In Industrial Profits Is Unsustainable In A Deflationary Environment Chart 9While The Economic Recovery Should Support Prices... Chart 10...A Rapidly Rising RMB Will Limit The Upside In Producer Prices Next Year Retail sales growth further strengthened in October. However, despite a sharp rebound in auto sales, other consumption segments, such as catering, tourism and consumer durable goods, remain sluggish. Household disposable income and employment have improved from troughs earlier this year, but both continue to lag behind the recovery in the industrial sector. The sluggish household sector has prompted Chinese leaders to take actions. In a State Council executive meeting on November 18, Primer Li Keqiang pledged to promote the consumption of home appliances, catering, and automobiles.3 Stocks of consumer goods and automakers rallied following the pro-consumption stimulus announcement. We continue to favor consumer discretionary stocks in both onshore and offshore markets. Even though the valuations in both sectors are elevated compared with the broad market, their earnings outlook also shows a notable improvement. In the next 6 months, targeted pro-consumption stimulus policies should further boost investors’ sentiment as well as profits in these sectors. Chart 11The Ex-Auto Retail Sales Remain Sluggish Chart 12Improving Household Income And Employment Will Support Consumption Chart 13Policy Support Will Continue Boosting Auto Sales... Chart 14...And Promote NEV Sales Chart 15Auto Sector's Outperformance Should Continue Chart 16Consumer Discretionary Sector Will Also Benefit From More Policy Support Chart 17Housing Demand In Second- And Third-Tier Cities Has Already Rolled Over In the past four weeks, the high-frequency data show that momentum in housing demand in second- and third-tier cities has quickly abated. Moreover, bank lending to property developers has rolled over, reflecting tighter financing regulations and pressure to deleverage in the property sector. Growth has flattened in medium- and long-term consumer loans while the propensity for home purchase has ticked up slightly. This divergence may be a sign that demand for real estate has not softened, but that home buyers are waiting for more discounts from property developers. As such, the rebound in floor space started in October should be short-lived as property developers’ profit margins continue to narrow and their financing remains constrained. We expect aggregate home sales growth to decelerate slightly in 1H21 from the past six months. However, real estate developers need to complete their existing projects, which will support construction activities into H1 next year. Chart 18Home Buyers May Be Expecting More Home Price Discounts Ahead Chart 19Financing Constrains Will Limit Investments In New Building Projects This year’s strong outperformance in China’s offshore equity prices has been driven by the TMT sector’s stocks (Information Technology, Media & Entertainment, and Internet & Direct Marketing Retail). Since October, however, Chinese stocks excluding the TMT sector have also started to outperform the global benchmarks. Moreover, domestic cyclicals, which do not feature some of China’s leading tech companies such as Alibaba and Tencent, have outpaced onshore defensive stocks. These developments indicate that as the upswing in China’s business cycle continues to strengthen, the outperformance in China’s ex-TMT stocks will likely be sustained into early 2021. Within cyclical sectors, we continue to favor the materials and consumer discretionary sectors aimed at policy dividends and a rebound in commodity prices. Chart 20China's Ex-TMT Stocks Starting To Outperform Global Chart 21Domestic Cyclicals Are Now Breaking Out Relative To Defensives Chart 22Accelerating Economic Recovery Will Continue To Support Chinese Cyclical Stocks Chart 23Rebounding Commodity Prices Will Bode Well For Material Stocks Recent bond payment defaults by several SOEs have led to a spike in onshore corporate bond yields. Nonetheless, the ripple effect on China’s financial markets has been limited outside of the corporate bond market; onshore stocks were little changed by news of the defaults. Moreover, the PBoC’s recent liquidity injections helped to stabilize the interbank rate. Historically, corporate bond defaults and rising bond yields have not had an imminent negative impact on China’s domestic stock market performance; none of the defaults in 2015, 2016 or 2019 led to selloffs in the equity market. However, during a business cycle upswing and following a large-scale stimulus, increasing corporate defaults typically mark the onset of tightening in financial regulations and the monetary cycle. We expect the upswing in the business cycle to begin losing momentum as the tightening policy cycle gains further traction in 2021. Prices in the forward-looking equity market will likely peak sooner on the expectation that the rate of economic and corporate earnings growth will slow in 2H21. Chart 24Stress In Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market Chart 25Stress In Chinese Onshore Corporate Bond Market Chart 26But So Far Negative Impacts On The Stock Market Are Limited Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Footnotes 1Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Macro And Market Review," dated October 7, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2Headline PPI is comprised of producer and consumer goods. The weights of producer and consumer goods are roughly 75% and 25%, respectively. As for producer goods by industry, the weight of the manufacturing sector is around 50%, followed by 20% for the raw material sector; the mining sector accounts for only around 5%. 3Pro-auto consumption plans include: providing subsidies to encourage urban car owners to replace older and higher-emission models with newer environmentally friendly ones; encouraging automobile sales and upgrades in rural areas; and promoting New Energy Vehicle (NEV) sales. The plan will also loosen some existing restrictions on auto sales and increase the permits for vehicle license plates. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
According to BCA Research’s Global Asset Allocation service, equity valuations look compelling compared to bonds. The spread between the US cyclically adjusted earnings yield to the 10-year Treasury real yield has been higher only 25% of the time since 1960.…
Highlights Inflation Breakeven Trades: We are taking profits on our recommended inflation breakeven widening trades in Italy and Canada, as breakevens in both countries are no longer below the fair values implied by our models. We are initiating a new trade this week, going long French 10-year inflation-linked bonds versus French nominal OATs, as French breakevens remain below fair value. Yield Curve Butterfly Trades: We are closing three of our four outstanding government bond yield curve trade recommendations, taking profits in France and Italy and realizing a loss in the UK. We are maintaining our US 5/7/10 butterfly trade, which is the cheapest way to position for an expected steepening of the Treasury curve based on our valuation models. Cross-Country Spread Trades: We are cutting our losses in our New Zealand-UK government bond spread trade, with the odds of the RBNZ shifting to a negative interest rate policy severely curtailed by political pressure over surging New Zealand house prices. We are maintaining our US-Germany spread widening trade, as the spread is too narrow based on our fair value model and we see more scope for US Treasury yields to drift higher in the coming months. Feature Dear Client, Next week, we will be jointly publishing our semi-annual Central Bank Monitor Chartbook along with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy. You will receive that report a few days later than usual on Friday, December 11. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, December 15 with our 2021 Key Views report outlining our main investment themes and ideas for the upcoming year. Best Regards, Rob Robis As we enter the final weeks of an incredibly eventful and (unfortunately) all too memorable 2020, our attention now turns to investment ideas for the coming New Year. This week, all BCA Research clients will receive the 2021 Outlook report, detailing the key themes and recommendations from all our strategists. We will follow that up with our own 2021 Global Fixed Income Strategy outlook report later this month. The waning days of the year also offer a good time to review our more short-term trade recommendations currently in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. In addition, the waning days of the year also offer a good time to review our more short-term trade recommendations currently in our Tactical Overlay portfolio (Table 1). Several of our suggested trades have generated a solid profit (like inflation breakeven wideners) but have now outlived their original rationale. Others, like some of our yield curve trades in Europe, have not gone as we expected and should therefore be closed out. Table 1Changes To Our Tactical Overlay Portfolio As a reminder to our regular readers, our Tactical Overlay is a portfolio of individual trade ideas within the global fixed income space with an investment horizon of six months or less. These differ from our more typical strategic (6-12 month) recommendations that also populate our model bond portfolio. Ideas for our Tactical Overlay trades often stem from our fair value models, but can also be plays on events that we expect will be market relevant on a near-term basis, like central bank meetings. All recommended trades are implemented using specific securities, rather than generic Bloomberg tickers or bond indices. This allows for a more transparent process where clients can follow along with the performance of our trades. Evaluating Our Tactical Inflation-Linked Breakeven Trades We currently have two open tactical trade recommendations involving inflation-linked bonds: Long 10-year Italian inflation-linked bonds vs short 10-year Italian bond futures Long 10-year Canadian inflation-linked bonds vs short 10-year Canadian bond futures We initiated both of these trades back in June of this year, as well as an additional trade involving US TIPS, based on the output of our inflation breakeven fair value framework. In our models, we regress 10-year inflation breakevens on the annual rate of change of oil prices in local currency terms and a multi-year moving average of realized headline inflation.1 At the time of our mid-year report, inflation breakevens were too low on our models in the majority of developed market countries with inflation-linked bonds – a lingering after-effect of the COVID-19 shock to global growth in the second quarter of 2020 (Chart 1). Since then, 10-year inflation breakevens have caught up to fair value in the US, Germany, Italy and Canada, and have even moved above fair value in the UK and Australia. Chart 1A Big Shift In Inflation Breakeven Valuations In June, we also entered into a US 10-year TIPS breakeven widening trade, but we took profits on the trade once US breakevens returned back to our model fair value estimate in September. We now see a similar situation in Canada (Chart 2) and Italy (Chart 3) where breakevens have converged to our model-implied fair value. Chart 2Canadian 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model A move above fair value is possible, but could be harder to achieve with the Canadian dollar and euro steadily trending higher which could weigh on the market’s view on future inflation in Canada and Italy. We are taking profits on our Canada and Italy 10-year breakeven trades, realizing profits of 4.7% and 5.6% respectively. Thus, we are taking profits on our Canada and Italy 10-year breakeven trades, realizing profits of 4.7% and 5.6% respectively. The Italian returns were boosted considerably by the long side of this trade, as we entered the position when the 10-year real yield was +1.05% and which has since collapsed to -0.05% on the back of the massive rally in Italian bonds. One place where breakevens still look attractively cheap, trading close to one standard deviation below our model fair value, is in France (Chart 4). This contrasts with the breakevens in Italy and Germany that have fully converged to fair value. Thus, we are entering a new trade this week, going long the on-the-run 10yr French inflation-linked bond (OATi) and shorting French bond futures (Euro-OATs). The hedge ratio used for this trade to keep both legs duration matched, given the much shorter duration of the OATi relative to nominal French bonds, is 0.49 (see the Tactical Overlay table on page 17 for specific details on the securities used in the trade). Chart 3Italian 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart 4French 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Bottom Line: We are taking profits on our recommended inflation breakeven widening trades in Italy and Canada, while initiating a new breakeven widening position in France, based on the output of our breakeven fair value models. Evaluating Our Yield Curve/Butterfly Spread Trades Back in July, we initiated a series of yield curve butterfly spread trades in the US, UK, Italy and France.2 Butterfly spreads compare the yield of a single bond (bullets) to that of a duration-neutral combination of bonds with shorter and longer maturities relative to the bullet (barbells). Our valuation models produce fair value estimates of various butterfly combinations based on the relation of the butterfly spreads to the slope of the yield curve. We then combine those valuations with our own macro views on the future slope of yield curves to come up with potential value-based curve trades.3 We now evaluate our four existing curve trades in turn. Long UK 3/20 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet Our original rationale for entering this trade was two-fold. Firstly, this position was the most attractive butterfly combination in terms of the standardized deviation of the spread from its model-implied fair value. Secondly, there was a relatively low correlation between nominal UK bond yields and inflation breakevens--meaning that we could see a rise in long-dated inflation expectations that did not also push up nominal bond yields by a proportional amount. This made the trade consistent with our overall macro view back in July that the Gilt curve would flatten (the same rationale applies to the other two long barbell versus short bullet trades, or “flatteners”, in France and Italy that we discuss below). Unfortunately, our rationale did not play out as expected (Chart 5). Instead of reverting to fair value, the butterfly spread was mostly flat while the bullet grew more expensive relative to the barbell, driven by a rise in the model fair value. This in turn was due to significant steepening in the underlying 3/20 curve, contrary to our expectations. We also saw a significant overall upward shift in the overall UK Gilt curve, which generated losses on our long barbell position (which has a higher interest rate convexity) that overwhelmed the profits on our short bullet position. Going forward, there are good technical and strategic reasons to exit this trade. The butterfly spread is not yet at levels where it tends to mean-revert (second panel). In addition, Joe Biden’s US election victory has also increased the odds of a Brexit deal, which would put bear-steepening pressure on the UK Gilt curve. With that in mind, we are closing our Long UK 3/20 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet for a loss of -0.17%. Long France 2/30 Barbell vs. 5-Year Bullet Our rationale for entering this flattener was the same as in the UK. However, we fared quite a bit better here. The underlying 2/30 curve did flatten, as we expected, however, the butterfly spread itself moved further away from fair value, with the bullet component becoming relatively more expensive (Chart 6). So, as with the UK, the returns on this trade can be largely explained by the relative outperformance of the barbell component due to its higher convexity. In France, however, the effect worked to our favor as the yield curve shifted downwards significantly. The positive returns on the long French 30-year OAT component, where yields have been nearly slashed in half since July, dominated the other parts of the trade - even with the 30-year bond only being a small piece (11%) of the duration-weighted barbell Chart 5UK 3/10/20 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 6France 2/5/30 Spread Fair Value Model Although we did make profits on the flattener, it turned into a convexity bet that was not our original intention. Seeing as our underlying logic did not work out as expected, we are not comfortable remaining in this position. Thus, we are closing our France butterfly trade for a profit of 0.56%. Long Italy 5/30 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet As with the UK and France, we entered this trade based on its attractive model-based valuation and the relatively low correlation between inflation breakevens and nominal yields in France. Our expectation of flattening in the underlying 5/30 curve did not bear out as it remained mostly flat (Chart 7). We did see some reversion in the butterfly spread towards our model-implied fair value, which helped us make profits on our trade. Again, we cannot ignore the effect of convexity when looking at the outperformance of the barbell component. Yields fell dramatically across the Italian curve in one of the clearest examples of the yield-chasing behavior we have been describing this year.4 As Italian yields continue their race to the bottom, supported by ECB asset purchases and perceptions of more fiscal co-operation between the countries of Europe, there is a chance that this trade will continue to perform by virtue of its exposure to the long end of the Italian curve. However, as our original bias towards curve flattening did not play out, we prefer to maintain our exposure to Italian government debt via an overweight allocation in our model bond portfolio instead. We therefore close our Long Italy 5/30 Barbell vs. 10-Year Bullet for a profit of 0.83% Long US 7-Year Bullet vs. 5/10 Barbell The US was the only region where we initiated a “steepener” trade, with a long bullet versus short barbell combination that does well when the yield curve steepens. We chose this particular 5/7/10 butterfly as it was the most attractive steepener available based on our model-implied valuation that also fit our fundamental macro bias back in July towards US Treasury curve steepening – a view that we still hold today. With signs pointing towards further bear steepening of the Treasury curve, we feel comfortable keeping this US 5/7/10 butterfly spread trade open. Our rationale for initiating the trade was borne out, with the underlying 5/10 Treasury curve steepening and the butterfly spread tightening towards fair value (Chart 8). Our trade was supported by a continued rebound in long-dated US inflation expectations as well as the US election result, the most bond-bearish event of the year. Chart 7Italy 5/10/30 Spread Fair Value Model Chart 8US 5/7/10 Spread Fair Value Model Going forward, we see good reasons to maintain this trade. The butterfly spread, after briefly reaching expensive levels, is back to being attractively valued. Even if the residual were to dip back below zero, it would still have room to become more expensive, shoring up our trade. This trade also remains the most attractive of all the steepener trades on a model-implied valuation basis, removing any incentive to rotate towards another part of the curve. The odds favor more reflationary Treasury curve steepening after the US election. President-elect Biden has a stated goal of more fiscal stimulus, while his selection of Janet Yellen as Treasury Secretary signaling increased cooperation between monetary and fiscal authorities. With signs pointing towards further bear steepening of the Treasury curve, we feel comfortable keeping this US 5/7/10 butterfly spread trade open. Bottom Line: We are closing three of our four outstanding government bond yield curve trade recommendations, taking profits in France and Italy and realizing a loss in the UK. We are maintaining our US 5/7/10 butterfly trade, which is the cheapest way to position for an expected steepening of the Treasury curve based on our valuation models. Evaluating Our Cross-Country Yield Spread Trades We currently have two recommended trades involving plays on the spread between government bonds: Long 5-year New Zealand government bonds versus short 5-year UK Gilts, currency-hedged into GBP We initiated this trade on August 25, and to date the trade is severely underwater with a total return of -1.8%.5 That loss comes from the long New Zealand leg of the trade, as the 5-year NZ bond yield has increased by 34bps from our entry level. Chart 9A Rapid Shift Upward In NZ Rate Expectations The rationale for this trade was based on our assessment of the relative probability of the Bank of England (BoE) and Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) moving to a negative interest rate policy. Both central banks hinted strongly at such a move throughout the summer months as part of their efforts to support pandemic-stricken economies. Our view back in late August was that it was more likely that the RBNZ would choose negative rates, as New Zealand had far lower inflation expectations than the UK and, unlike the British pound, the New Zealand dollar was not undervalued. This trade was initially profitable, but all that changed rapidly during the month of November. The RBNZ disappointed investor expectations on a move to negative rates at the November 11 monetary policy meeting. The central bank elected instead to increase the size of its existing quantitative easing program, while giving no hint that negative rates were coming soon. The response was a sharp move higher in both New Zealand bond yields and the New Zealand dollar (Chart 9). There was an even more violent adjustment in yields and the currency last week, after New Zealand Finance Minister Grant Robertson wrote a letter to RBNZ Governor Adrian Orr asking the central bank to change its policy remit to include controlling New Zealand house price inflation. Markets interpreted this blatant political pressure on the central bank as the end of any hopes of negative rates in New Zealand, with bond yields and the currency spiking higher once again. House prices have surged after the RBNZ aggressively cut interest rates earlier this year, with a rapidly rising share of new mortgages having higher loan-to-value ratios (Chart 10). House price inflation is now running at 19.8%, and Finance Minister Robertson did cite deteriorating housing affordability and inequality as the basis for his letter to the RBNZ. It is clear that a move to negative interest rates – which could further fuel the explosion in house prices – is now very difficult for the RBNZ to pull off without facing intense criticism. It is clear that a move to negative interest rates – which could further fuel the explosion in house prices – is now very difficult for the RBNZ to pull off without facing intense criticism. This shatters the underlying rationale for our long New Zealand/short UK yield spread trade (Chart 11). Chart 10RBNZ-Fueled Boom In House Prices Thus, we are choosing to cut our losses and close out our recommended trade. Long 10-year German Bunds versus short 10-year US Treasuries Chart 11Time To Cut Our Losses On The NZ-UK Trade We initiated this recommendation on October 27, and to date the trade is running a small loss of -0.17%.6 The rationale behind the trade was two-fold: Our valuation model for the 10-year UST-Bund yield spread showed that the spread was far below fair value; We turned more bearish on US Treasuries just before the US presidential election, downgrading our recommended allocation to underweight while also upgrading more defensive Germany – with its low yield-beta to US Treasuries - to overweight. The trade initially performed well, driven by faster growth and inflation in the US versus the euro area (Chart 12). The Treasury selloff has stalled of late, but we view this as more a consolidative pause than a near-term peak in yields. Chart 12Fundamentals Justify A Wider UST-Bund Spread With our Treasury-Bund valuation model still showing that the spread is too tight, and with the spread not looking overly stretched versus its 200-day moving average (Chart 13), we are keeping our US versus Germany trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio. Chart 13Valuation & Momentum Point To A Wider UST-Bund Spread Bottom Line: We are cutting our losses in our New Zealand-UK government bond spread trade, with the odds of the RBNZ shifting to a negative interest rate policy severely curtailed by political pressure over surging New Zealand house prices. We are maintaining our US-Germany spread widening trade, as the spread is too narrow based on our fair value model and we see more scope for US Treasury yields to drift higher in the coming months Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, " How To Play The Revival Of Global Inflation Expectations", dated June 23, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Yield Curve Trades: Netting Returns With Butterflies", dated July 7, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Readers looking for more detailed background on butterfly trades and our yield curve modelling framework should refer to the July 7, 2020 Strategy Report where we initiated these trades. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "We’re All Yield Chasers Now", dated August 11, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Assessing The Leading Candidates To Join The Negative Rates Club", dated August 26, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Bond Implications Of Rising Treasury Yields", dated October 27, 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
In a previous Insight, we noted that the Fed’s adoption of an Average Inflation Target has likely created a new hedging reality for equity investors, and that cash is likely to be the least uncompelling diversifying asset over the coming 6-12 months. We…
The chart above presents a scatterplot of monthly total returns for the S&P 500 index and 10-year US Treasurys. The chart highlights that the relationship has been reliably negative over the past decade, meaning that the correlation between stock prices and…
Highlights US Corporates: The decision by the US Treasury to let the Fed’s emergency lending programs expire does not sound the death knell for the bull market in US corporate debt. Credit markets are functioning normally and US economic growth remains resilient, even amid a surge in COVID-19 cases, with politically unpopular European-style lockdowns unlikely. Global Corporate Strategy: Remain moderately overweight developed market corporate debt, favoring the US over the euro area. Look to increase allocations to lower-rated US high-yield credit on any near-term spread widening, as there is more room for junk spread compression over the next 6-12 months as defaults peak. Feature When looking at the 2020 year-to-date total returns from global corporate credit, the performance at first blush has not been terrible. The Bloomberg Barclays Global Investment Grade Corporate index has returned 8.2% since the start of the year, while the benchmark global high-yield index has returned 3.6%. While the bulk of those returns have come from duration exposure as global bond yields have fallen sharply, a passive allocation to corporate bonds on January 1 has been a money-making investment in 2020. Chart of the WeekUS Credit Markets Need Less Policymaker Support Of course, a lot has happened since the beginning of the year. A global pandemic, a historically severe global recession, a massive selloff of risk assets in February and March and an equally robust recovery of equity and credit markets on the back of huge monetary and fiscal stimulus. It should come as no surprise that the 2020 peak in US corporate bond spreads occurred on March 23 – the day that the Fed and US Treasury introduced asset purchase vehicles designed to support stricken US credit markets. This is why the announcement last week that outgoing US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has decided to let those emergency lending facilities expire on December 31, with the Fed returning the US Treasury’s capital invested in those programs, is potentially of major significance for credit investors. It is reasonable to think that credit markets could suffer without the Fed’s involvement. The growth and market liquidity backdrop, however, has improved substantially over the past several months. US corporate bonds can live, and likely thrive, without the Fed backstop. The US economy remains surprisingly resilient, with the November flash estimate for the Markit composite PMI index reaching the highest level since 2015. This occurred even in the midst of a huge surge of global COVID-19 cases that has weighed heavily on European economies (Chart of the Week). Add to that signs that corporate bond markets are functioning smoothly - investors are willing to commit capital to credit markets, and borrowers are having no problem placing large volumes of debt at low yields and spreads – and it is easy to conclude that Fed’s explicit support is no longer required. The growth and market liquidity backdrop, however, has improved substantially over the past several months. US corporate bonds can live, and likely thrive, without the Fed backstop. From the point of view of corporate bond investment strategy, we continue to recommend a moderate overweight stance on global corporate debt versus government bonds over the next 6-12 months, favoring US investment grade and high-yield over European equivalents, even with the Fed pulling away its bid. Steve Mnuchin May Have A Good Point Even though Fed Chair Jerome Powell publicly disagreed with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin’s decision, the Fed will shut down the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility, the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility, the Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility, the Municipal Liquidity Facility and the Main Street Lending Program on December 31. Those facilities are part of the US government support programs under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. The US Treasury seeded the facilities with $195 billion in capital, which the Fed levered up to create as much as $2 trillion in buying power (Table 1). Yet the actual usage of that spending capacity has been quite low, with only $13.3 billion spent in the Fed’s secondary market facility. Not a single dollar was spent in the primary market facility, as companies had no problems issuing debt directly to markets rather than selling new bonds to the Fed. Table 1US CARES Act Programs: Little-Used, But Highly Successful According to data from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the pace of monthly US corporate bond issuance and daily trading volumes are now following the typical seasonal pattern seen over the past two years (Chart 2). This occurred after a surge of issuance activity in Q2 as issuers took advantage of the vastly improved trading conditions in corporate bond markets after the initiation of the Fed’s liquidity backstop. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin noted these trends in his letter to Fed Chair Powell that was essentially an order to shut down the Fed’s emergency lending facilities.1 Chart 2US Credit Markets Are Functioning Normally Chart 3No Stomach For Nation-Wide Lockdowns In The US US credit markets are not only functioning well, so is the US economy. The Markit US services PMI rose in November to 57.7 (from 56.9 in October), while the same index fell to 41.3 (from 46.9) in the euro area and 45.8 (from 51.4) in the UK (Chart 3). As services industries like dining, travel and retail spending are most directly impacted by lockdowns related to COVID-19, it should not be a surprise that the data underperformed massively in Europe, where severe economic restrictions have been imposed to slow the spread of the virus. This compares to the US where the restrictions have been far more modest and varying across cities and regions. The pace of monthly US corporate bond issuance and daily trading volumes are now following the typical seasonal pattern seen over the past two years. Some slowing of US domestic economic activity should be expected over the next month or two, with more parts of the country putting greater restrictions on activities like indoor dining and in-person schooling. However, the political will to impose the sort of harsh nation-wide “shelter at home” type lockdowns currently in place in Europe is simply not there in the US after the shock of the Q2 lockdown-induced economic slump. US growth should thus continue to outperform – to the benefit of US corporate bond market performance relative to US Treasuries and European corporate equivalents. US corporate bond yields, both for investment grade and high-yield credit, have already declined massively in 2020, as have yields for European credit and even emerging market bonds (Chart 4). Given our view that US Treasury yields have bottomed and will likely drift higher over the next 6-12 months, it will be difficult to see further declines in corporate bond yields that are already near record lows. Chart 4Corporate Yields Falling To New Lows Chart 5Corporate Spreads Approaching 2020 Lows Corporate bond spreads, on the other hand, do have room to compress even just to levels seen before the February/March credit market rout – especially for US high-yield. The option-adjusted spread (OAS) for the Bloomberg Barclays US investment grade index is now 17bps away from the 2020 low, while the OAS for the euro area and UK are 7bps and 8bps away, respectively. For high-yield, the US index OAS is 107bps above the 2020 low, compared to 95bps for euro area high-yield and 81bps for UK high-yield (Chart 5). The near-term economic case for favoring US corporates over European corporates is a strong one, given the slightly larger spread cushions for US credit and the absence of large-scale US lockdowns. Given the severity of the lockdown-induced economic slump in the euro area and UK, which is likely to linger over the holiday season and into the early part of 2021, the near-term economic case for favoring US corporates over European corporates is a strong one, given the slightly larger spread cushions for US credit and the absence of large-scale US lockdowns. Bottom Line: The decision by the US Treasury to let the Fed’s emergency lending programs expire does not sound the death knell for the bull market in US corporate debt. Credit markets are functioning normally and US economic growth remains resilient, even amid a surge in COVID-19 cases, with politically unpopular European-style lockdowns unlikely. A Quick Look At Corporate Bond Spread Valuations In The US & Europe The tremendous rally in global corporate bond markets since late March has pushed credit spreads down to levels that raise concerns about valuations. Thus, it is now a good time to revisit some of our favorite spread valuation metrics. One simple way to evaluate the attractiveness of the level of spreads, and how much further they could fall, is to compare them to standard macro volatility gauges like the US VIX index. Credit spreads and equity volatility are highly correlated, as both are measures of investor uncertainty that rise during risk-off episodes and vice versa. The ratio of corporate credit spreads to equity volatility, therefore, can signal if spreads appear stretched relative to the broader risk backdrop. Chart 6US Corporate Spreads Look Tight Vs Equity Vol Chart 7Euro Area Corporate Spreads Look Tight Vs Equity Vol We show the ratio of the US investment grade and high-yield index OAS to the VIX index in Chart 6. For both higher-quality and lower-rated corporate credit, the spread-to-VIX ratio is now close to the lowest level seen since 2000 – both around 1.7 standard deviations below the long-run mean – suggesting that spreads are tight relative to overall macro volatility We show similar ratios for euro area corporates versus the VStoxx European equity volatility index in Chart 7, and UK corporates versus the IVI UK equity volatility index in Chart 8. The conclusions are similar to US credit, with spread-to-volatility ratios for both investment grade and high-yield now at low levels, one standard deviation below the mean since 2000. Chart 8UK Corporate Spreads Look Tight Vs Equity Vol Chart 9Notable Duration Differences Between Corporates It is difficult to draw any relative conclusions about credit valuations between the regions from the spread/volatility ratios, as they all point to spreads looking tight. Thus, we need to look at other valuation tools. Our more preferred metric to assess credit spreads is to look at the percentile rankings of 12-month breakeven spreads. The 12-month breakeven spread is the amount of credit spread widening that must occur for a credit product to have a return equal to a duration-matched, risk-free government bond over a one-year horizon. We look at the historical percentile ranking of the 12-month breakeven spreads to determine how current levels compare with the past. It is difficult to draw any relative conclusions about credit valuations between the regions from the spread/volatility ratios, as they all point to spreads looking tight. To calculate the 12-month breakeven spreads for corporate bonds, we take the ratio of the index OAS to the index duration for the specific bond market in question. This allows a comparison of breakeven spreads across different markets with varying risks, with duration being a main source of price risk (Chart 9). The 12-month breakeven spreads for the investment grade and high-yield corporate debt for the US, euro area and UK are shown in Charts 10, 11 and 12, respectively. For the US, the breakeven spread for investment grade corporates is currently in the bottom decile of its history, suggesting that the spread does not look particularly attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. Chart 10US Corporate Bond Breakeven Spread Percentile Rankings Chart 11Euro Area Corporate Bond Breakeven Spread Percentile Rankings Chart 12UK Corporate Bond Breakeven Spread Percentile Rankings Euro area and UK investment grade breakeven spread percentile rankings are a bit higher than in the US, right on the cusp of the bottom quartile for both. Although for euro area corporates, the breakeven spread is boosted by the much lower duration of the euro area investment grade index and does not necessarily suggest that spreads there are currently more attractive than in the US and UK. Turning to junk bonds, the US high-yield 12-month breakeven spread is currently in the 67th percentile of its own history, suggesting that spreads are relatively attractive. The UK high-yield breakeven spread is also above average, with the latest reading in the 55th percentile. Euro area high-yield is the least attractive, with the latest 12-month breakeven spread in the 33rd percentile of its own history. Taking the 12-month breakeven spread as a measure of value (and, hence, a gauge of prospective future returns), we can compare it to a measure of spread volatility to evaluate the risk/return tradeoff for various credit markets. To measure spread risk, our preferred metric is duration times spread (DTS). We show a scatter chart of the latest 12-month breakeven percentile ranking for the overall US, UK and euro area corporate bond markets – for investment grade and high-yield, and including all the major credit rating tiers – in Chart 13. The most attractive trade-off of valuation versus spread risk is currently in the lower rated US junk bond tiers (B-rated and Caa-rated). Chart 13Comparing Value (Breakeven Spreads) With Risk (Duration Times Spread) Chart 14A Lingering Positive Impact On Credit Markets From Global QE What stands out in the chart is that the most attractive trade-off of valuation versus spread risk is currently in the lower rated US junk bond tiers (B-rated and Caa-rated). At the other end of the spectrum, US investment grade offers one of the least attractive risk/reward tradeoffs. This suggests a potential attractive opportunity to move down in quality within US corporate debt, particularly with ultra-accommodative global monetary policies providing a lingering tailwind for global corporate bond performance over the next 6-12 months (Chart 14). We prefer scaling into that trade on any bouts of US high-yield weakness, however. There are still near-term risks associated with the rapid spread of COVID-19 in the US and the lack of momentum on US fiscal stimulus negotiations during the transition period to the new Biden administration. Turning across the Atlantic, euro area high-yield looks far less attractive than US high-yield on a risk/reward basis. This fits with our current recommendation to underweight euro area junk bonds versus US equivalents (see our strategic recommendation tables on page 14). We also continue to recommend an overweight stance on UK investment grade corporates, which still offer a slightly more attractive risk/return tradeoff versus US equivalents. Bottom Line: Remain moderately overweight developed market corporate debt, favoring the US over the euro area. Look to increase allocations to lower-rated US high-yield credit on any near-term spread widening, as there is more room for junk spread compression over the next 6-12 months as defaults peak. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Mnuchin’s letter to Powell can be found here: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/letter11192020.pd Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns