Corporate Bonds
Highlights Dear Clients, Please note that this will be our final Weekly Report for the year. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 3, 2017. The U.S. Investment Strategy team wishes you a restful holiday season and a prosperous New Year. Chart 1Trump + Yellen Recent bond market moves are soft echoes of the 1994 bond bear market, when investors suddenly began to price in a much less benign outlook for the Fed. There are mitigating factors that mean the current bond selloff will not be as violent. But the normalization of policy rates is no longer a challenge for the distant future. This process was always going to be fraught with risk, given the unprecedented amount of accommodation (conventional and unconventional) employed after the Great Recession. Even a mild version of 1994 could undermine equity returns. Indeed, the risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations due to anticipated fiscal stimulus (that may disappoint) at a time when domestic monetary conditions are tightening. Feature It was no surprise that the FOMC raised the Fed funds rate by 25bps at last week's meeting. But investors were caught off-guard by the move higher in the Fed's "dot" forecast. Instead of two more hikes next year, the Fed now expects to raise rates three times. Moreover, the Fed inched up its estimate of the terminal interest rate to 3.0% from 2.875%. These revisions to the path of interest rates did not occur with any material changes to the Fed's economic projections. During the post-meeting press conference, Fed Chair Janet Yellen downplayed the "dot" revisions, by noting that the median projections moved due to changes by only some Fed participants. But despite Yellen's soothing remarks, the financial markets did not interpret the revisions to be minor. The dollar strengthened by nearly 2%, and 10-year bond yields spiked by 20bps (Chart 1). These market moves are soft echoes of the 1994 bond bear market - when investors suddenly began to price in a much less benign outlook for the Fed. Investors will note that in that cycle, the Fed's extended on hold period in 1993 had lulled bond investors into a false sense of complacency; investors were almost completely caught off-guard when tightening began in early February 1994 (Chart 2 and Chart 3). At the end of 1993, the market projected that the 3-month rate, the 10-year and the 30-year yield would be 4.3%, 6.2% and 6.5%, respectively, by the end of 1994. The actual yields at the end of 1994 turned out to be more than 130 basis points higher at 5.6%, 7.8% and 7.85%. From the trough in yields in September 1993 to the peak in November 1994, the Treasury index lost 5%. High-grade spread product, such as Agencies, MBS and investment-grade corporate bonds also suffered losses. The S&P 500 fell by about 9% in early 1994. Economic improvement was the main factor for the re-pricing of the Fed funds rate in 1994 (Chart 4). In the first half of the year, the unemployment rate declined 0.5% (from 6.6% to 6.1%) and monthly average payrolls were above 320,000! As the economy gained self-feeding momentum, the Fed steadily hiked interest rates, causing Treasuries and spread product to buckle. In fact, inflation did not go up but bond yields kept rising and the U.S. economy remained robust. The Mexican financial crisis in late 1994/early 1995, directly stemming from Fed tightening, marked the end of the Treasury bear and Fed restraint. Chart 21993 Complacency, 1994 Panic Chart 3Bond Market Is Still Behind Chart 41994 Economic Acceleration Fueled The Bond Bear All of this bears some resemblance to current conditions, albeit the level of growth today is much lower. Like early 1994, the economy now appears on the cusp of full employment (Chart 5). Most forecasters (including BCA) expect that growth will shift to an above-trend pace for at least a few quarters. And indeed, the debate has already shifted from deflation to the potential for inflation. To be sure, as we wrote last week, it takes a long time to change a prevailing mindset about inflation or deflation and it is unlikely that the Fed will find itself in a position to aggressively tighten against an inflation breakout over the next twelve months. But if GDP growth bucks the pattern of recent years in which first quarter growth disappointed expectations, then bond investors could begin to look for the exits more fervently. What is different this cycle than in 1994? For one thing, the Fed's communication strategy has drastically changed. Since 2012, the Fed has been publishing the "dot plot," a set of FOMC projections for inflation, GDP and the projected policy path. These projections serve as forward guidance about policy intent and in theory, should help smooth out any changes in market participants' expectations about the Fed's policy path and reduce the likelihood of overshoots in expectations. In addition, it seems likely that bonds are now more concentrated in "strong hands." One of the major concerns in 1994 was that retail investors, i.e. the household sector, piled into bonds at precisely the wrong time: throughout the 1980s, bond returns only marginally trailed that of equities and with far less volatility, lulling retail investors into believe bonds couldn't lose them money. Today, according to the BIS,2 around 40% of U.S. Treasuries are owned by the Federal Reserve and the foreign official sector. In addition, the BIS also posits that it is possible that pension funds (the third largest holders of Treasuries) and insurance companies may even benefit from rising rates in the medium term, as a normalized yield environment would allow them to more easily meet promised returns. This composition of ownership, in particular the Fed and foreign official investors - who are non-profit seeking entities, will not be forced to sell into a bear market. Chart 5On The Cusp Of Full Employment True, corporate bonds are now more heavily concentrated in the hands of private investors who seek yield and total return. The prospective price volatility of these securities may be much higher than an entire generation of fixed income investors' experience has taught them to expect. Finally, the U.S. dollar traded sideways from 1990-1993, and fell throughout 1994, which is very different from today. Currently, the policy feedback loop limits the degree to which the Fed can ultimately raise interest rates. This loop has been in place since last year: each hawkish move from the Fed has been met by a sharp upward adjustment in the trade-weighted dollar and a selloff in equities and credit spreads. Tighter-than-expected financial conditions have then forced the Fed to lower its outlook for future economic growth and adopt a more dovish policy stance. A more dovish Fed then caused financial conditions to ease and the dollar to fall, and this easing eventually emboldened Fed policymakers to move in a more hawkish direction. The loop then repeats. The reason this loop has been in place is because U.S. monetary policy is so far in advance of other central banks. Overall, there are mitigating factors that suggest that the current bond selloff will not be as violent as 1994. But the normalization of policy rates is no longer a challenge for the distant future. As expectations of economic growth improve, a re-pricing of Fed interest rate hike expectations will persist. This process was always going to be fraught with risk, given the unprecedented amount of accommodation (conventional and unconventional) employed after the Great Recession. We expect that bond selloffs over the next year will happen in fits and starts, as the feedback loop from the bond market and dollar to policy decisions repeats. The move in Treasury yields since mid-November has proceeded too quickly relative to the improvement in economic fundamentals and will pause in the near term to prevent financial conditions from exerting an excessive drag on growth. However, we believe short duration positions will make money on a 2-3 year horizon. How Will Equities Cope? Apart from the 1994 episode, there have been three other major Fed tightening cycles since 1985 (Chart 6). In each case, the 10-year Treasury suffered an almost 10% or more annual loss, either following or just before short-term rates began their ascent. Investors underestimated the pace and extent of rate hikes every time and equity prices also faltered, at least temporarily. This was the case even when the Fed telegraphed a modest and steady 25 basis point-per-meeting pace of rate hikes from 2003 to 2006. The point is that even a mild version of 1994 could undermine equity returns. Indeed, the risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations due to anticipated fiscal stimulus (that may disappoint) at a time when domestic monetary conditions are tightening. Earnings-per-share growth is significantly lower today than in 1993, and the gap between trailing earnings growth and 12-month forward expectations is wide. This suggests that there is a greater risk of earnings disappointment than was the case in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, valuation is poor (Chart 6, bottom panel). Still, we concede that sentiment and technical indicators continue to favor near-term equity gains (Chart 7). Neither our technical nor our intermediate indicator is signalling danger (although both have rolled over). Only our monetary indicator is flashing a warning. The risk is that the longer the uptrend in stocks continues without interruption, the greater the payback will be should economic performance disappoint. Chart 6Fed Re-Entry Is Historically Tough Chart 7An Expensive And Risky Rally Animal Spirits Revival? In our view, the most notable development for the U.S. economy in recent weeks has been the impressive swing in confidence since the election in November. If sustained, the rise in confidence could propel growth to an above-trend pace as "animal spirits" are unleashed. We take this possibility seriously, since depressed confidence in the outlook was an important force capping the upside in growth earlier in the recovery. Nonetheless, this is not our base case, since we continue to believe that it is perilous to focus solely on the positive aspects of Trump's political agenda, while ignoring the more negative ones. This phenomenon seems to be borne out in the NFIB survey data. Although still low relative to past recoveries, optimism among small business owners improved drastically last month, according to the NFIB survey (Chart 8). The improvement was broad-based, showing gain in sales expectations, expansion plans and hiring intentions. But as the NFIB's chief economist pointed out, this surge in optimism is mainly due to businesses reacting favorably to Trump's platform of tax cuts and less regulation. In any case, the recent improvement in consumer confidence has not noticeably translated to improved consumer spending yet. Nominal retail sales eked out a tiny 0.1% m/m gain in November and the October data were revised lower. As we highlighted in a previous report, massive price discounting continues to be a factor pushing down nominal spending. Indeed, despite the potential for an upturn in inflation on the back of unconfirmed Trump policies, the current pricing environment remains tough. Core CPI rose only 0.2% in November, and the annual growth rate - at 2.1% - is lower than at the start of the year. Our diffusion index is below 50, meaning that more sub-components of the CPI are decelerating than accelerating (Chart 9). Chart 8Optimism Returning Chart 9Consumers Are Confident, Will They Spend? The overall message is that economic data continue to display a "two steps forward, one step backward" pattern. We expect growth momentum to gradually build and the economy can grow above trend next year. However, even once the output gap closes, it can take a long time for inflation pressures to build and for inflation expectations to move higher. Ultimately, this dynamic means that the Fed will have the scope to proceed slowly. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 This week's report is greatly inspired by our Special Report, "Reincarnation And Bond Vigilantes," February 5, 2013. 2 "A Paradigm Shift In Markets?," Bank For International Settlements (BIS), December 11, 2016 http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1612a.htm Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommended weightings for the major asset classes are unchanged: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral and in line with our benchmark portfolio recommendation for equities. The technical component retained its "buy" signal, with some improvements in the momentum and breadth & trend indicators. The monetary component, though less bullish for equities as it continued to weaken somewhat, is still in favorable territory for equities. However, on the cyclical front, the earnings-driven component continues to warrant caution as real operating earnings are at a significant distance from positive economic expectations. Earnings momentum has also further deteriorated, based on an earnings diffusion index which compares nominal earnings growth relative to four economic and monetary variables such as oil prices (WTI), ISM Inventories, 10-year Treasury yields and 3-month T-bill rates. Our qualitative stance for the allocation of Treasuries in balanced portfolios is neutral (since November 7, 2016) in contrast to the slightly overweight recommendation from our quantitative model. However the "buy signals" of the cyclical and technical components of the bond model have weakened, nearing critical levels which would surrender the preference for Treasuries in the near term. Chart 10Portfolio Total Returns Chart 11Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009.
Recommendation Allocation Highlights Growth was picking up before the election of President Trump. His election merely accelerates the rotation from monetary to fiscal policy. This is likely to cause yields to rise, the Fed to tighten and the dollar to strengthen further. That will be negative for bonds, commodities and emerging market assets, and equivocal for equities. Short term, markets have overshot and a correction is likely. But the 12-month picture (higher growth and inflation) suggests risk assets such as equities will outperform. Our recommendations mostly have cyclical tilts. We are overweight credit versus government bonds, underweight duration and, in equity sectors, overweight energy, industrials and IT (and healthcare for structural reasons). Among alts, we prefer real estate and private equity over hedge funds and structured products. We limit beta through overweights (in common currency terms) on U.S. equities versus Europe and emerging markets. We also have a (currency-hedged) overweight on Japanese stocks. Feature Overview A Shift To Reflation The next 12 months are likely to see stronger economic growth, particularly in the U.S., and higher inflation. That will probably lead to higher long-term interest rates, the Fed hiking two or three times in 2017, and further dollar strength. The consequences should be bad for bonds, but mixed for equities - which would benefit from a better earnings outlook, but might see multiples fall because of a higher discount rate. The election of Donald Trump merely accelerates the rotation from monetary policy to fiscal policy that had been emerging globally since the summer. Trump's fiscal plans are still somewhat vague,1 but the OECD estimates they will add 0.4 percentage points to U.S. GDP growth in 2017 and 0.8 points in 2018, and 0.1 and 0.3 points to global growth. Growth was already accelerating before the U.S. presidential election. Global leading indicators have picked up noticeably (Chart 1), and the Q3 U.S. earnings season surprised significantly on the upside, with EPS growth of 3% (versus a pre-results expectation of -2%) - the first YoY growth in 18 months (Chart 2). Chart 1Global Growth Picking Up Chart 2U.S. Earnings Growing Again The problem with the shift to fiscal, then, is that it comes at a time when slack in U.S. economy has already largely disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the output gap is now only -1.5%, which means it is likely to turn positive in 2017 (Chart 3). Unemployment, at 4.6%, is below NAIRU2 (Chart 4). Historically, the output gap turning positive has sown the seeds of the next recession a couple of years later, as the Fed tightens policy to choke off inflation. Chart 3Output Gap Will Close In 2017 Chart 4Will This Trigger Inflation Pressures? As the Fed signaled at its meeting on December 14, it is likely to raise rates two or three times more in 2017. But we don't see it getting any more hawkish than that. Janet Yellen has made it clear that she will not preempt Trump's fiscal stimulus but rather wait to see it passed by Congress. The market is probably about right in pricing in an 80% probability of two rate hikes in 2017, and a 50% probability of three. With the Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker rising 3.9% YoY and commodity prices (especially energy) starting to add to headline inflation, the Fed clearly wants to head off inflation before it sets in. We do not agree with the argument that the Fed will deliberately allow a "high-pressure economy." The result is likely to be higher long-term rates. The 10-year U.S. yield has already moved a long way (up 100 BP since July), and our model suggests fair value currently is around 2.3% (Chart 5). Short term, then, a correction is quite possible (and would be accompanied by moves in other assets that have overshot since November 9). But stronger global growth and an appreciating dollar over the next 12 months could easily push fair value up to 3% or beyond. The relationship between nominal GDP growth (which is likely to be 4.5-5% in 2017, compared to 2.7% in 1H 2016) and long-term rates implies a rise to a similar level (Chart 6). Accordingly, we recommend investors to be underweight duration and prefer TIPs over nominal bonds. Chart 5U.S. 10-Year At Fair Value Chart 6Rise In Nominal GDP Could Push It Up To 3% Global equities, on a risk-adjusted basis, performed roughly in line with sovereign bonds in 2016 - producing a total return of 9.2%, compared to 3.3% for bonds (though global high yield did even better, up 15.1%). If our analysis above is correct, the return on global sovereign bonds over the next 12 months is likely to be close to zero. Chart 7Will Investors Reverse The Move##br## from Equities To Bonds? The outlook for equities is not unclouded. Higher rates could dampen growth (note, for example, that 30-year fixed-rate mortgages in the U.S. have risen over the past two months from 3.4% to 4.2%, close to the 10-year average of 4.6%). The U.S. earnings recovery will be capped by the stronger dollar.3 And a series of Fed hikes may lower the PE multiple, already quite elevated by historical standards. Erratic behavior by President Trump and the more market-unfriendly of his policies could raise the risk premium. But we think it likely that equities will produce a decent positive return in this environment. Portfolio rebalancing should help. Since the Global Financial Crisis investors have steadily shifted allocations from equities into bonds (Chart 7). They are likely to reverse that over the coming quarters if bond yields continue to trend up. Accordingly, we moved overweight equities versus bonds in our last Monthly Portfolio Update.4 Our recommended portfolio has mostly pro-cyclical tilts: we are overweight credit versus government bonds, overweight most cyclical equity sectors, and have a preference for risk alternative assets such as real estate and private equity. But our portfolio approach is to pick the best spots for taking risk in order to make a required return. We, therefore, balance this pro-cyclicality by some lower beta stances: we prefer investment grade debt over high yield, and U.S. and Japanese equities over Europe and emerging markets. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking What Will Trump Do? Trump made several speeches in September with details of his tax plan. He promised to (1) simplify personal income tax, cutting seven brackets to three, with 12%, 25% and 33% tax rates; (2) cut the headline corporate tax rate to 15% (from 35%); and (3) levy a 10% tax on the $3 trillion of corporate retained earnings held offshore. He was less specific on infrastructure spending, but Wilbur Ross, the incoming Commerce Secretary, mentioned $550 billion, principally financed through public-private partnerships. The Tax Policy Center estimates the total cost of the tax plan at $6 trillion (with three-quarters from the business tax cut). But it is not clear how much will be offset by reduced deductions. Incoming Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, for example, said that upper class taxpayers will get no absolute tax cut. TPC estimates the tax plan alone will increase federal debt to GDP by 25 percentage points over the next 10 years (Chart 8). The OECD, assuming stimulus of 0.75% of GDP in 2017 and 1.75% in 2018, estimates that this will raise U.S. GDP growth by 0.4 percentage points next year and by 0.8 points in 2018, with positive knock-on effects on the rest of the world (Chart 9). While there are questions on the timing (and how far Trump will go with trade and immigration measures), BCA's geopolitical strategists sees few constraints on getting these plans passed.5 Republications in Congress like tax cuts (and will compromise on the public spending element) and it is wrong to assume that Republican administrations reduce the fiscal deficit - historically the opposite is true (Chart 10). Chart 8Massive Increase In Debt Chart 9GDP Impact Of U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Chart 10A Lot of Stimulus, And Extra Debt Implications for markets? Short term positive for growth and inflation; longer-term a worry because of crowding out from the increased government debt. How Will The Strong USD Impact Global Earnings? We have a strong U.S. dollar view and also favor U.S. equities over the euro area and emerging markets. Some clients question our logic because conceptually a strong USD should benefit earnings growth in the non-U.S. markets, and therefore non-U.S. equities should outperform. Chart 11USD Impact On Global Earnings Currency is just one of the factors that we consider when we make country allocation decisions, and our weights are expressed in USD terms unhedged. We will hedge a currency only when we have very high conviction, such as our current Japan overweight with a yen hedge, which is based on our belief that the BOJ will pursue more unconventional policies to stimulate the economy. This is undoubtedly yen bearish but positive for Japanese stocks. As shown in Chart 11, a stronger USD has tended to weaken U.S. earnings growth (panel 1). However, what matters to country allocation is relative earnings growth. Panels 3 and 5 show that in local currency terms, earnings growth in emerging markets and the euro area did not always outpace that in the U.S. when their currencies depreciated against the USD. In fact, when their currencies appreciated, earnings growth in USD terms tended to outpace that in the U.S. (panels 2 and 4), suggesting that the translation impact plays a very important role. This is consistent with what we have found for relative equity market returns (see Global Equity section on page 13). Currency affects revenues and costs in different proportions. If both revenues and costs are in same currency, then only net profit is affected by the currency. But, since many companies manage their forex exposure, at the aggregate level the currency impact will always be "weaker than it should be". What Is The Outlook For Brexit And The Pound? The U.K. shocked the world on 24 June 2016 with its vote to leave the European Union. However, the process and terms of exit are yet to be finalized pending the Supreme Court's decision on the role of parliament in invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Depending on this decision, there is a spectrum of possible outcomes for the U.K./EU relationship. At the two ends of the spectrum are: 1) a hard Brexit - complete separation from the EU, in which case the pound will plunge further; 2) a soft Brexit - with a few features of the current relationship retained, in which case the pound will rally. Chart 12What's Up Brexit? The fall in the nominal effective exchange rate to a 200-year low (Chart 12) is a clear indication of the potential serious long-term damage. With the nation's dependence on foreign direct investment (FDI) to finance its large current account deficit (close to 6% of GDP), more populist policies and increased regulation will hurt corporate profitability, making local assets less profitable to foreigners. The pound is currently caught up in a vicious circle of more depreciation, leading to higher inflation expectations and depressed real rates, which adds further selling pressure. This is the likely path of the pound in the case of a hard Brexit. For U.K. equities, under a hard Brexit that adds downward pressure to the pound, investors should favor firms with global revenues (FTSE 100) and underweight firms exposed more to domestic business and a potential recession (FTSE 250). The opposite holds true in the case of a soft Brexit. Investors should also underweight U.K. REITs because of cyclical and structural factors that will affect commercial real estate. In the case of a hard Brexit, structural long-term impacts to the British economy include: 1) a decline in the financial sector - the EU will introduce regulations that will force euro-denominated transactions out of London; 2) a slowdown in FDI - the U.K. will cease to be a platform for global companies to access the EU, triggering a long-term decline in foreign inflows; 3) weaker growth - with EU immigration into the U.K. expected to fall by 90,000 to 150,000 per year, estimates.6 point to a 3.4% to 5.4% drop in per capita GDP by the year 2030. What Industry Group Tilts Do You Recommend? In October 2015, we advocated that, because long-term returns for major asset classes would fall short of ingrained expectations, investors should increase alpha by diving down into the Industry Group level.7 How have these trades fared, and which would we still recommend? Long Household And Personal Products / Short Energy. We closed the trade for a profit of 12.2% in Q12016. This has proven to be quite timely as oil prices, and Energy stocks along with it, have rallied substantially since. Long Insurance / Short Banks. The early gains from this trade reversed in Q2 as long yields have risen rapidly, leading to yield curve steepening. However, our cyclical view is still intact. Relative performance is still holding its relationship with the yield curve (Chart 13). Historically, Fed tightening has almost always led to bear flattening. We expect the same in this cycle, which should lead to Insurance outperformance. Long Health Care Equipment / Short Materials. This trade generated early returns but has since underperformed as Materials bounced back sharply. Nevertheless, we remain bearish on commodities and EM-related plays, viewing this rise in Materials stocks as more of a technical bounce from oversold valuations (Chart 14). Commodities remain in a secular bear market. On health care, we maintain our structural bullish outlook given aging demographics, increased spending on health care and attractive valuations. Short Retail / Global Broad. We initiated trade in January after the Fed initiated liftoff. Consumer Discretionary stocks collapsed after, and this trade has provided a gain of 2.01%. We maintain this view as the recent hike and 2017 hikes will continue to dampen Retail performance (Chart 15). Additionally, Retail has only declined slightly while other Consumer Discretionary stocks have falling drastically, suggesting downside potential from convergence. Chart 13Flatter Yield Curve Is Bullish Chart 14An Oversold Bounce Chart 15Policy Tightening = Underperformance Global Economy Overview: The macro picture looks fairly healthy, with growth picking up in developed economies and China, though not in most emerging markets. The weak patch from late 2015 through the first half of 2016, with global industrial and profits recessions, appears to be over. The biggest threat to growth now is excessive dollar strength, which would slow U.S. exports and harm emerging markets. U.S.: U.S. growth was surprising on the upside (Chart 16) even before the election. Q2 real GDP growth came in at 3.2% and the Fed's Nowcasting models indicate 2.6-2.7% in Q4. After rogue weak ISMs in August, the manufacturing indicator has recovered to 53.2 and the non-manufacturing ISM to 57.2. However, growth continues to be driven mainly by consumption, with capex as yet showing few signs of recovery. A key question is whether a Trump stimulus will be enough to reignite "animal spirits" and push corporates to invest more. Euro Area: Eurozone growth has also been surprisingly robust. PMIs for manufacturing and services in November came in at 53.7 and 53.8 respectively; the manufacturing PMI has been accelerating all year. This is consistent with the ECB's forecasts for GDP growth of 1.7% for both this year and next. However, risk in the banking system could derail this growth. Credit growth, highly correlated with economic activity, has picked up to 1.8% YOY but could slow if banks turn cautious. Japan: Production data has reacted somewhat to Chinese stimulus, with IP growth positive (Chart 17) for the past three months and the Leading Economic Index inching higher since April. But the strength of the yen until recently and disappointing inflation performance (core CPI -0.4% YOY) have depressed exports and consumer sentiment. The effectiveness of the BoJ's 0% yield cap on 10-year government bonds, which has weakened the yen by 14% in two months, should trigger a mild acceleration of growth in coming quarters. Chart 16U.S. Economy Surprising ##br##On The Upside Chart 17Growth Picks Up In##br## Most DMs And China Emerging Markets: China has continued to see positive effects from its reflation of early 2016, with the manufacturing PMI close to a two-year high. The effects of the stimulus will last a few more months, but the authorities have reined back now and the currency is appreciating against its trade basket. The picture is less bright in other emerging markets, as central banks struggle with weak growth and depreciating currencies. Credit growth is slowing almost everywhere (most notably Turkey and Brazil) which threatens a further slowdown in growth in 2017. Interest rates: Inflation expectations have risen sharply in the U.S. following the election, but less so in the eurozone and Japan. They may rise further - pushing U.S. bond yields close to 3% - if the Trump administration implements a fiscal stimulus anywhere close to that hinted at. This could, in turn, push the Fed to raise rates at least twice more in 2017. The ECB has announced a reduction in its asset purchases starting in April 2017, too, but the Bank of Japan will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening. Chart 18Earnings Bottoming But##br## Valuation Stretched Global Equities Cautiously Optimistic: Global markets have embraced the "hoped for" pro-growth and inflationary policies from the new U.S. administration since Trump's win on November 8. In the latest GAA Monthly Update published on November 30,8 we raised our recommendation for global equities relative to bonds to overweight from neutral on a 6-12 month investment horizon. However, the call was driven more by underweighting bonds than by overweighting equities, given the elevated equity valuations and declining profit margins.(Chart 18) The hoped-for U.S. pro-growth policies would, if well implemented, be positive for earnings growth, but the "perceived" earnings boost has not yet shown up in analysts' earnings revisions (panel 3). In fact, only three sectors (Financials, Technology and Energy) currently have positive earnings revisions, because analysts had already been raising forward earnings estimates since early 2016. According to I/B/E/S data as of November 2016, about 80% of sectors are forecast to have positive 12-month forward earnings growth, while only about 20% have positive 12-month trailing earnings growth (panel 3). Within global equities, we continue to favor developed markets over emerging market on the grounds that most EMs are at an early stage of a multi-year deleveraging.9 We also favor the U.S. over the euro area (see more details on the next page). The Japan overweight (currency hedged) is an overwrite of our quant model: we believe that the BoJ will pursue increasingly unconventional monetary policy measures over the coming 12 months. The quant model (in USD and unhedged) has suggested a large underweight in Japan but has gradually reduced the underweight over the past two months. Our global sector positioning is more pro-cyclical than our more defensively-oriented country allocations. In line with our asset class call, we upgrade Financials to neutral and downgrade Utilities to underweight, and continue to overweight Energy, Technology, Industrials, and Healthcare while underweighting Telecom, Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples. Country Allocation: Still Favor U.S. Over Euro Area GAA's portfolio approach is to take risk where it is likely to be best rewarded. Having taken risk at the asset class level (overweight equities vs. bonds), at the global equity sector level with a pro-cyclical tilt, and at the bond class level with credit and inflation tilts, we believe it's appropriate to maintain our more defensive equity tilt at the country level by being market weight in euro area equities on an unhedged USD basis while maintaining a large overweight in the U.S. Chart 19Uninspiring profit Outlook It's true that the euro area PMI has been improving. Relative to the U.S., however, the euro area's cyclical improvement, driven by policy support, has lost momentum. It's hard to envision what would reverse this declining growth momentum, suggesting European earnings growth will remain at a disadvantage to the U.S. (Chart 19, panel 1) It's also true that the underperformance of eurozone equities versus the U.S. has reached an historical extreme in both local and common currency terms, and that euro equities are trading at significant discount to the U.S. But Europe has always traded at a discount, and the current discount is only slightly lower than its historical average. Our work has shown that valuation works well only when it is at extremes, which is not the case currently. Conceptually, a weak euro should boost euro area equity performance at least in local currency terms, yet empirical evidence does not strongly support such a claim: the severe underperformance since 2007 has been accompanied by a 43% drop in the euro versus the USD (Chart 19 panel 2). In fact, in USD terms, the euro area tended to outperform the U.S. when the euro was strong (panel 3), suggesting that currency translation plays a more dominant role in relative performance. Our currency house view is that the euro will depreciate further against the USD, given divergences in monetary and fiscal policy between the two regions. As such, we recommend clients to continue to favor U.S. equities versus the euro area, but not be underweight Europe given that it is technically extremely oversold. Sector Allocation: Upgrade Financials To Neutral Our sector quant model shifted global Financials to overweight in December from underweight, largely driven by the momentum factor. We agree with the direction of the quant model as the interest rate environment has changed (Chart 20, panel 1) and valuation remains very attractive (panels 2), but we are willing to upgrade the sector only to market weight due to our concern on banks in the euro area and emerging markets. Within the neutral stance in the sector, we still prefer U.S. and Japanese Financials to eurozone and emerging market ones. Despite the poor performance of the Financials sector relative to the global benchmark, U.S. and Japanese financials have consistently outperformed eurozone financials, driven by better relative earnings without any valuation expansion (panel 3). U.S. banks have largely repaired their balance sheets since the Great Recession, and the "promised" deregulation by the new U.S. administration will probably help U.S. banks. In the euro area, however, banks, especially in Italy, are still plagued with bad loans (panel 4). We will watch banking stress in the region very closely for signs of contagion (panel 5) The upgrade of financials is mainly financed by downgrading the bond proxy Utilities to underweight from neutral, in line with our asset class view underweighting fixed income. Chart 20Global Financials: Regional Divergence Chart 21Global Equities: No Style Bet Smart Beta Update: No Style Bet In a Special Report on Smart Beta published on July 8 2016,10 we showed that it is very hard to time style shifts and that an equal-weighted composite of the five most enduring factors (size, value, quality, minimum volatility and momentum) outperforms the broad market consistently on a risk-adjusted basis. Year-to-date, the composite has performed in line with the broad market, but over the past three months there have been sharp reversals in the performance of the different factors, with Min Vol, Quality and Momentum sharply underperforming Value and Size (Chart 21 panel 1). We showed that historically the Value/Growth tilt has been coincident with the Cyclical/Defensive sector tilt (panel 3). Panel 2 also demonstrates that the Min Vol strategy's relative performance can also be well explained by the Defensives/Cyclicals sector tilt. Sector composition matters. Compared to Growth, Value is now overweight Financials by 25.6%, Utilities by 13.2%, Energy by 8.3% and Materials by 2.5%, while underweight Tech by 23%, Healthcare by 12.7%, and Consumer Discretionary by 10%. REITs is in pure Growth, while Utilities and Telecom are in pure Value, and Energy has very little representation in Growth. In our global sector allocation, we favor Tech, REITs, Energy, and Healthcare, while underweight Utilities, Consumer Discretionary and Telecoms, and neutral on Financials and Materials. As such, maintaining a neutral stance on Value vs. Growth is consistent with our sector positioning. Government Bonds Maintain slight underweight duration. After 35 years, the secular bull market in government bonds is over. Even with Treasury yields skyrocketing since the Trump victory, the path of least resistance for yields is upward (Chart 22). Yields should grind higher slowly as inflation rises and growth indicators continue to improve. Bullish sentiment has dropped considerably, but there is further downside potential. Additionally, fiscal stimulus from Japan and further rate hikes from the Fed will provide considerable tailwinds. Overweight TIPS vs. Treasuries. Despite still being below the Fed's target, with headline and core CPI readings of 1.6% and 2.2% respectively, U.S. inflation has clearly bottomed for the cycle (Chart 23). This continued rise is a result of cost-push inflation driven by faster wage growth. Trump's increased spending and protectionist trade policies are both inflationary. As real GDP growth should remain around 2% annualized and the labor market continues to tighten, this effect will only intensify. Valuations have become less attractive but very gradual Fed hikes will not be enough to derail the upward momentum in consumer prices. Overweight JGBs. The BoJ has ramped up its commitment to exceeding 2% inflation by expanding its monetary base and locking in 10-year sovereign yields at zero percent. Additionally, the end of the structural decline in interest rates suggests global bonds will perform poorly going forward. During global bond bear markets, low-beta Japanese government debt has typically outperformed (Chart 24). This will likely hold true again as global growth improves and Japanese authorities increase fiscal stimulus while maintaining their cap on bond yields. Chart 22Maintain Slight Underweight Duration Chart 23Inflation Uptrend Intact Chart 24Overweight JGBs Corporate Bonds The BCA Corporate Health Monitor remains deeply in "Deteriorating Health" territory, indicating weakness within corporate balance sheets (Chart 25). Over the last quarter, the rate of deterioration actually slowed, with all six ratios improving slightly. Nevertheless, the trend toward weaker corporate health has been firmly established over the past eleven quarters. This is consistent with the very late stages of past credit cycles. Maintain overweight to Investment Grade debt. In the absence of a recession, spread product will usually outperform. U.S. growth should accelerate in 2017, with consumer confidence being resilient, fiscal spending expected to increase, and the drag from inventories unwinding. Monetary conditions are still accommodative and the potential sell-off from the rate hike should be milder than it was in December 2015 (Chart 26). Additionally, credit has historically outperformed in the early stages of the Fed tightening cycle. However, there are two key risks to our view. The end of the structural decline in interest rates presents a substantial headwind to investment grade performance. Since 1973, median and average returns were slightly negative during months where long-term yields rose. During the blow-off in yields in the late 1970s, corporate debt performed very poorly. However, yields had reached very high levels. Secondly, valuations are unattractive, with OAS spreads at their lowest in about one and a half years (Chart 27). Chart 25Balance Sheets Deteriorating Chart 26Still Accommodative Chart 27Expensive Valuations Commodities Secular Perspective: Bearish We reiterate our negative long-term outlook on the commodity complex on the back of a structural downward shift in global demand led primarily by China's transition to a services-driven economy. With this slack in demand, global excess capacity has sent deflationary impulses across the globe, limiting upside in commodity prices.11 Chart 28OPEC To The Rescue Cyclical Perspective: Neutral A divergent outlook for energy and base metals gives us a neutral view for aggregate commodities over the cyclical horizon (Chart 28). Last month's OPEC deal supports our long-standing argument of increasing cuts in oil supply, which will support energy prices. However, metal markets suffer from excess supply. A stronger U.S. dollar will continue to be a major headwind over the coming months. Energy: OPEC's agreement to cut production by 1.2 mb/d has spurred a rally in the crude oil price, as prospects for tighter market conditions next year become the base case. However, with the likelihood that the dollar will strengthen further in coming months, oil will need more favorable fundamentals to rise substantially in price from here. Base Metals: The U.S. dollar has much greater explanatory power12 than Chinese demand in price formation for base metals. The recent rally in base metals is overdone with metals prices decoupling from the dollar; we expect a correction in the near-term driven by further dollar strength. Metal markets remain oversupplied as seen by rising iron ore and copper inventories. We remain bearish on industrial and base metals. Precious Metals: Gold, after decoupling from forward inflation expectations in H1 2016 - rising while inflation expectations were weak - has converged back in line with the long-term inflation gauge. Our expectation of higher inflation, coupled with rising geopolitical uncertainties, remain the two key positives for the gold price. However, our forecast of U.S. dollar appreciation will limit upside potential for the precious metal. Currencies Key Themes: USD: Much of the post-Trump rally in the dollar can be explained by the sharp rally in U.S. bond yields (Chart 29). We expect more upside in U.S. real rates relative to non-U.S. rates, driven by the U.S.'s narrower output gap and the stronger position of its household sector. As labor market slack continues to lessen and wage pressures rise, the Fed will be careful not to fall behind the curve; this will add upward pressure to the dollar. Chart 29Dollar Continues It's Dominance Euro: Since the euro area continues to have a wider output gap than the U.S., the euro will face additional downward pressure on the back of diverging monetary policy. As the slack diminishes, the ECB will respond appropriately - we believe the euro has less downside versus the dollar than does the yen. Yen: Although the Japanese economy is nearing fully employment, the Abe administration continues to talk about additional stimulus. As inflation expectations struggle to find a firm footing despite the stimulus, the BOJ is explicitly aiming to stay behind the curve. Additionally, with the BOJ pegging the 10-year government bond yield at 0% for the foreseeable future, we expect further downward pressure on the currency. EM: We expect more tumult for this group as rising real rates have been negative for EM assets in this cycle. EM spreads have widened in response to rising DM yields which has led to more restrictive local financial conditions. The recovery in commodity prices has been unable to provide any relief to EM currencies - a clear sign of continued weak fundamentals (rising debt, excess capacity and low productivity). Commodity currencies will face more downside driven by their tight correlation with EM equities (0.82) and with EM spreads. Alternatives Overweight private equity / underweight hedge funds. Global growth is fairly stable and has the potential to surprise on the upside. In the absence of a recession, private equity typically outperforms as the illiquidity premium should provide a considerable boost to returns. Hedge funds, on the other hand, have displayed a negative correlation with global growth. Historically, they have outperformed private equity only during recessions or periods of high credit market stress (Chart 30). Overweight direct real estate / underweight commodity futures. Commercial real estate (CRE) assets are in a "goldilocks" scenario: Growth is sufficient to generate sustainable tenant demand without triggering a new supply cycle. Favor Industrials for its income potential and Retail given resilient consumer spending. Overweight trophy markets, as demand remains robust given multiple macro risks. Commodities have bounced, but remain in a secular bear market caused by a supply glut and exacerbated by a market-share war (Chart 31). Overweight farmland & timberland / underweight structured products. The trajectory of Fed policy, the run-up in equity prices and the weak earnings backdrop have increased the importance of volatility reduction. Favor farmland & timberland. Substantial portfolio diversification benefits, resulting from low correlations with traditional assets, coupled with a positive skew, make these assets highly attractive. As the most bond-like alternative, structured products tend to outperform during recessions, which is not our base case (Chart 32). Chart 30PE: Tied To Real Growth Chart 31Commodities: A Secular Bear Market Chart 32Structured Products Outperform In Recessions Risks To Our View Our main scenario is for stronger growth, higher inflation and an appreciating dollar in 2017, leading to equities outperforming bonds. Where could this go wrong? Growth stagnates. U.S. growth could fail to pick up as expected: the stronger dollar will hurt profits, which might lead to companies cutting back on hiring; higher interest rates could affect the housing market and consumer discretionary spending; companies may fail to increase capex, given their low capacity utilization ratio (Chart 33). In Europe, systemic banking problems could push down credit growth which is closely correlated to economic growth. Emerging markets might see credit events caused by the stronger dollar and weaker commodities prices. Political risks. An unconventional new U.S. President raises uncertainty. How much will Trump emphasize his more market-unfriendly policies, such as tougher immigration control, tariffs on Chinese and Mexican imports, and interference in companies' decisions on where to build plants? His more confrontational foreign policy stance risks geopolitical blow-ups. Elections in France, the Netherland and Germany in 2017 could produce populist government. The Policy Uncertainty Index currently is high and this historically has been bad for equities (Chart 34). Chart 33Maybe Companies Won't Increase Capex Chart 34Policy Uncertainty Is High Synchronized global growth. If the growth acceleration were not limited to the U.S. but were to spread, this might mean that the dollar would depreciate, particularly as it is already above fair value (Chart 35). In this environment, given their inverse correlation with the dollar (Chart 36), commodity prices and EM assets might rise, invalidating our underweight positions. Chart 35Dollar Already Above##br## Fair Value Chart 36How Would EM And Commodities Move##br## If USD Weakens? 1 We discuss them in the "What Our Clients Are Asking," section of this Quarterly Portfolio Outlook. 2 Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment - the level of unemployment below which inflation tends to rise. 3 Please see "How Will The Strong USD Impact Global Earnings," in the What Our Clients Are Asking section of this Quarterly Portfolio Outlook. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Monthly Portfolio Update: The Meaning of Trump," dated November 30, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency", dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 According to National Institute of Economic Research.com. 7 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "Asset Allocation In A Low-Return World, Part IV: Industry Groups," dated October 25, 2015, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation,"Monthly Portfolio Update," dated November 30, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report,"Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes," dated December 5, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?," dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 11,12 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes," dated December 5, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation
Highlights Duration: An easing of financial conditions is likely necessary for recent improvements in U.S. economic growth to continue. As such, the uptrend in Treasury yields will pause in the near-term before resuming early next year. Corporate Bonds: The macro back-drop is turning marginally more positive for corporate spreads. C&I lending standards are no longer tightening and bank stocks have rallied significantly. Corporate Bonds: Spreads are too tight at the moment, even for an improving economic environment. Remain neutral (3 out of 5) on investment grade and underweight (2 out of 5) on high-yield for now. We are actively looking to add exposure to corporate credit from more attractive levels. Feature There is no question that the U.S. economy is on a firm footing heading into the New Year. Third quarter real GDP growth came in at a robust 3.2%, and the Atlanta and New York Fed tracking models currently forecast fourth quarter growth of 2.6% and 2.7%, respectively. This represents a marked acceleration from the average growth rate of 1.1% witnessed during the first two quarters of 2016. Forward-looking survey data are also pointing in the right direction. The ISM non-manufacturing survey reached 57.2 in November, its highest level since October 2015, while the expectations component of the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey reached 88.9 in December, its highest level since January 2015 (Chart 1). The question for bond investors is how much of this good news is already reflected in Treasury yields. Higher Treasury yields and a stronger dollar have already led to a material tightening in some broad indexes of financial conditions, enough to exert a meaningful drag on U.S. growth (Chart 2). In fact, according to the Fed's FRB/US model, the recent interest rate and dollar moves could be expected to shave 1% from GDP over the next eight quarters. Chart 1Economic Tailwinds Chart 2Financial Conditions Must Ease The natural conclusion is that while some upside in Treasury yields is justified by an improving economic outlook, the bond selloff has proceeded too quickly and must pause in the near-term to prevent financial conditions from exerting an excessive drag on growth. Sentiment and positioning indicators also confirm that the uptrend in yields appears stretched (Chart 2, bottom two panels). As such, last week we tactically shifted our recommended portfolio duration allocation from 'below benchmark' to 'at benchmark'.1 We expect Treasury yields will grind higher next year, reaching a range of 2.8% to 3% by the end of 2017, but the selloff will proceed more gradually, in line with the acceleration in economic growth. A More Uncertain World The premise that the bond selloff has proceeded too quickly is confirmed by our Global PMI models of the 10-year Treasury yield. We track two versions of our Global PMI model. One is a 2-factor model based only on the Global PMI index and a survey of bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. The intuition behind this model is that improving global growth contributes to a higher fair value Treasury yield. However, for a given level of global growth, increasingly bullish dollar sentiment applies downward pressure to yields. This is because a stronger dollar represents a tightening of monetary conditions, so that all else equal, a stronger dollar means we should expect fewer Fed rate hikes. The current fair value reading from this 2-factor model is 2.26%, meaning that the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.49% appears somewhat cheap (Chart 3). The second version of our Global PMI model is a 3-factor model which adds the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index (EPUI) as a third independent variable. All else equal, an increase in uncertainty about the economic outlook should depress the term premium in long-dated Treasury yields. The data appear to back-up this assertion, as the EPUI is negatively correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield over time. With the addition of the EPUI, our 3-factor model explains 84% of the variation in the 10-year Treasury yield since 2010, compared to 80% from our 2-factor model. The EPUI spiked last month, and as such, this version of the model suggests that fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield is only 1.82% (Chart 4). Chart 32-Factor Global PMI Model Chart 43-Factor Global PMI Model There are probably good reasons to overlook last month's spike in policy uncertainty. For one, the EPUI, created by Baker, Bloom and Davis,2 is largely constructed from algorithms that scan newspaper articles for keywords. They do not attempt to distinguish between economic news with bond-bearish or bond-bullish implications. Second, we have found that large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in economic growth tend to mean-revert fairly quickly. This past summer's Brexit vote being a prime example. As a counterpoint, however, the negative correlation between the EPUI and the 10-year Treasury yield is quite robust (Chart 5), and historically, incidents of spiking policy uncertainty and rising Treasury yields have been few and far between. Since 1991, there have been 42 instances when the monthly increase in the EPUI exceeded one standard deviation. In those 42 months, the 10-year Treasury yield increased only 36% of the time, with last month's 53 basis point rise being by far the largest on record. We tend to view the reading from the 2-factor model as the more reasonable assessment of fair value in the current environment. But the spike in policy uncertainty does underscore why we should view the recent bond selloff skeptically. The recent selloff has, to a large extent, been predicated upon promises of fiscal stimulus that have yet to be delivered, from a President-elect who has shown himself to be highly unpredictable. In this environment, near-term caution is clearly warranted. Of course, this week the market's focus will at least temporarily turn away from fiscal policy and toward the Fed. We expect that the Fed will announce a 25 basis point increase in the fed funds rate tomorrow, but also that participants' interest rate projections will not change meaningfully. The FOMC will likely be much slower to react to promises of fiscal stimulus than the market. With the Fed's projected near-term path for interest rates already mostly discounted by the market (Chart 6), we could see a "dovish hike" from the Fed tomorrow coinciding with the near-term top in Treasury yields. Chart 5Economic Policy Uncertainty & Treasury Yields Chart 6A "Dovish Hike" Is In The Price Bottom Line: An easing of financial conditions is likely necessary for recent improvements in U.S. economic growth to continue. As such, the uptrend in Treasury yields will pause in the near-term before resuming early next year. A More Favorable Environment For Credit We frequently point to three main indicators that we use to assess the current stage of the credit cycle: Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) Monetary conditions relative to equilibrium C&I bank lending standards In a report3 published earlier this year we found that the performance of bank stocks relative to the overall market is another useful indicator (Chart 7). While the credit cycle is still very much in its late stages, recently, our indicators have been sending marginally more positive signals. The CHM remains deep in 'deteriorating health' territory and non-financial corporate balance sheets continue to lever-up aggressively. However, the indicator did inch slightly closer to 'improving health' territory in the third quarter due to an improvement in all six of its components (Chart 8). Make no mistake, trends in corporate balance sheet leverage are not supportive for corporate spreads. In fact, as we will explore in a future report, the recent divergence between rising leverage and tightening spreads is nearly unprecedented during the past 40 years. But at the margin, recent trends are less worrisome. Chart 7Credit Cycle Indicators Chart 8Corporate Health Monitor Components Box1: Corporate Health Monitor Components The BCA Corporate Health Monitor is a normalized composite of six financial ratios, calculated for the non-financial corporate sector as a whole. These six ratios are defined as follows: Profit Margins: After-tax cash flow as a percent of corporate sales Return on Capital: After-tax earnings plus interest expense, as a percent of capital stock Debt Coverage: After-tax cash flow less capital expenditures, as a percent of all interest bearing debt Interest Coverage: EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization) divided by the sum of interest expense and dividends Leverage: Total debt as a percent of market value of equity Liquidity: Working Capital, excluding inventories, as a percent of market value of assets Second, although monetary conditions appear very close to our estimate of equilibrium, the recent steepening of the yield curve suggests that the market is revising its estimate of monetary equilibrium higher, leading to a de-facto easing of monetary conditions. In the long-run, with the Fed in the midst of a hiking cycle, this sort of easing is unlikely to persist. But, as we argued in a recent report,4 the bear steepening curve environment could continue in the first half of next year as the Fed is slow to respond to an improving economy. Third, C&I bank lending standards have fallen back to unchanged after having tightened for four consecutive quarters. This likely reflects less stress in the energy sector now that oil prices have rebounded. Fourth, bank stocks have rallied strongly alongside the steepening yield curve. To the extent that higher bank stock prices reflect lower future commercial loan delinquencies, then this trend should be viewed positively from the perspective of credit investors. To test the idea that bank stock performance might help us trade the corporate bond market, we take a look at the past six credit cycles, going back to 1975 (Chart 9). The bottom panel of Chart 9 shows the percent drawdown in relative bank equity performance from its peak during the most recent credit cycle. We define credit cycles as the periods between when the CHM crosses into 'improving health' territory. For example, we define the most recent credit cycle as beginning when the CHM fell into 'improving health' territory in 2002 and ending when it fell into 'improving health' territory in 2009. Shaded regions in Chart 9 show periods when the CHM is in 'deteriorating health' territory. Chart 9Bank Equity Drawdown & Corporate Bond Performance If we construct a trading strategy using the CHM alone, we can get fairly good results. We find that investment grade corporate bonds underperform duration-equivalent Treasury securities in 3 out of 6 instances, over a 12-month investment horizon, following the time when the CHM first crosses into deteriorating health territory, for an average excess return of -1.2% (Table 1). Table 1Corporate Bond Trading Rules: 12-Month Investment Horizon However, we find that this result can be improved if we also incorporate bank stock price performance. If we were to only reduce corporate bond exposure when the CHM was in deteriorating health territory and after the drawdown in bank equities exceeded 20%, then the position is still profitable in 3 out of 6 instances, but for a more negative average return of -1.9%. Further, if we were to wait for the drawdown in bank equities to surpass 30%, then the hit rate on our position improves to 3 out of 5 and the average return falls to -4.6%. We find similar results if we use a 6-month investment horizon (Table 2). In the current cycle, the drawdown in bank stocks breached 25% in February but has since reversed course, and it has not yet reached the 30% threshold. Our analysis suggests that corporate bond underperformance tends to persist for some time even after the drawdown in bank stocks exceeds 30%. Table 2Corporate Bond Trading Rules: 6-Month Investment Horizon Chart 10Corporate Spreads Are Too Low Bottom Line: The macro back-drop is turning marginally more positive for corporate spreads. We remain neutral (3 out of 5) on investment grade and underweight (2 out of 5) on high-yield for now, due to poor starting valuation (Chart 10). But we are looking for an opportunity to upgrade from more attractive spread levels in the next couple of months. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Too Far Too Fast, But The Bond Bear Is Still Intact", dated December 6, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on the construction of this index please see www.policyuncertainty.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Lighten Up On Duration", dated February 16, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Chart 1More Upside From Inflation We moved to below benchmark duration on July 19, when the 10-year Treasury yield was 1.56%. As of last Friday's close, the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% and above the fair value reading from our global PMI model. While our economic outlook still justifies higher Treasury yields on a 12-month horizon, the selloff in bonds has moved too far, too quickly. We recommend tactically shifting to a benchmark duration stance. Longer run, the upside in Treasury yields will be concentrated in the inflation component. The cost of 10-year inflation compensation can rise another 49 bps before it is consistent with the Fed's target. But that adjustment will proceed gradually next year, alongside a shallow uptrend in realized inflation (Chart 1). Higher inflation compensation can occasionally be offset by lower real yields, but this only occurs when the increase in inflation compensation results from an easing of Fed policy, as in 2011-2012. With the Fed in the midst of a hiking cycle, the downside in real yields is limited. We would not be surprised to see the 10-year Treasury yield re-visit the 2%-2.2% range during the next month or two. At that point we would re-initiate a below benchmark duration stance, on the view that the 10-year yield will reach 2.80%-3% by the end of 2017. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in November. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month and, at 129 bps, it is now slightly below its historical average (134 bps). Spread per unit of gross leverage1 for the nonfinancial corporate sector is slightly above its historical average (Chart 2). But unusually, spreads have been tightening this year despite sharply rising gross leverage. Since 1973, there has only been one other period when spreads tightened despite rising gross leverage. That was in 1986-88 when, similar to today, spreads were tightening from extremely oversold levels. Much like today, elevated spreads in 1986 resulted from distress in the energy sector that dissipated as oil prices recovered. This caused corporate spreads to widen dramatically and then tighten, while in the background gross leverage persistently climbed higher. The current recovery in oil prices could lead to further corporate spread tightening early next year. Indeed, energy sector credits still appear cheap on our model and we continue to recommend overweighting those sectors. This month we also upgrade Paper from neutral to overweight (Table 3). Table 3Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* However, corporate credit fundamentals are deteriorating rapidly and spreads will be at risk when the Fed adopts a more hawkish policy stance, possibly as early as the second half of next year.2 High-Yield: Maximum Underweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 128 basis points in November. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 23 bps on the month and, at 450 bps, it is 71 bps below its historical average. A model based on lagged spreads and default losses explains more than 50% of the variation in 12-month excess junk returns. This model currently forecasts excess junk returns of close to zero during the next 12 months (Chart 3), a forecast that is based on our expectation of a modest improvement in default losses (bottom panel). In a recent report,3 we examined the relationship between default-adjusted spreads and excess junk returns in more detail. We showed that a model based purely on ex-ante estimates of default losses explains around 34% of the variation in excess junk returns. We also showed that, historically, negative excess returns to junk bonds are only likely if the ex-ante default-adjusted spread is below 100 bps. Our current ex-ante default-adjusted spread is 201 bps. Historically, when the ex-ante default-adjusted spread is between 200 bps and 250 bps, junk earns positive excess returns 81% of the time. However, junk earns positive excess returns only 65% of the time if the spread is between 150 bps and 200 bps. Although our economic outlook for next year is fairly optimistic, high-yield valuations are stretched and we expect to get a better entry point from which to upgrade the sector during the next couple of months. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in November. Other than municipal bonds, MBS has been the worst performing fixed income sector relative to Treasuries, earning year-to-date excess returns of -17 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 53 bps in November, driven by a 59 bps increase in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) declined 10 bps, while the option-adjusted spread widened by 4 bps. Prior to the election, we had been tactically overweight MBS on the view that higher Treasury yields would lead to a lower option cost, benefitting MBS in the near term. Now that Treasury yields have moved substantially higher, our focus returns to the extremely depressed levels of MBS option-adjusted spreads (Chart 4). Extremely low option-adjusted spreads coupled with a housing market that should continue to recover - leading to steadily increasing net supply (bottom panel) - make for a poor risk/reward trade-off in MBS relative to other fixed income sectors. Against this back-drop, MBS are only worth a tactical trade if you have high conviction that Treasury yields are about to rise and option costs about to tighten. We do not expect the Fed to cease the reinvestment of its MBS purchases in 2017. But, if Janet Yellen is replaced as Fed Chair in early 2018, then it is possible that the new Fed will seek to end its involvement in the MBS market. This is a tail risk for MBS in 2018. Government Related: Overweight Chart 5Government Related Market Overview The government-related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in November (Chart 5). Domestic Agency bonds and Local Authority bonds outperformed the Treasury index by 2 bps and 61 bps, respectively. Sovereign debt underperformed by 122 bps, Foreign Agency debt underperformed by 54 bps and Supranationals underperformed by 6 bps. More than half of the underperformance in the Foreign Agency sector came from Mexico's state oil company, Pemex, in the aftermath of Donald Trump's election win. Losses in the Sovereign debt sector were similarly concentrated in Mexican issues. Strength in oil prices should permit Foreign Agency debt to outperform going forward, while the strong U.S. dollar will remain a drag on Sovereign debt. Local Authority and Foreign Agency debt both continue to offer attractive spreads relative to U.S. investment grade corporate bonds, after adjusting for duration and credit rating. In contrast, Supranationals and Sovereigns both appear expensive. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to Sovereign debt within an otherwise overweight allocation to the government related sector. Bullet Agency issues outperformed callable Agency bonds in November, despite the large increase in Treasury yields (bottom panel). We expect this trend will soon reverse, and remain overweight callable versus bullet Agencies. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration equivalent Treasury index by 83 basis points in November (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose from 99% to 107% in November, and is now above its post-crisis average (Chart 6). We downgraded municipal bonds to underweight on November 15,4 following Donald Trump's election victory. Lower tax rates under the new administration will undermine the tax advantage in municipal bonds, leading to outflows and higher M/T yield ratios. ICI data show that outflows have already begun. Net outflows from Muni funds have exceeded $7 billion in the four weeks since the end of October (panel 4). There are also longer-run concerns related to supply and state & local government credit quality. Depending on how it is structured, increased infrastructure spending next year could lead to a large increase in municipal bond supply. Also, state & local government downgrades are likely to increase later next year, following the lead of the corporate sector. Both of these issues are discussed in more detail in a recent Special Report.5 In October, the SEC finalized new liquidity management standards for open-ended investment funds. Funds must now determine a minimum percentage of net assets that must be invested in highly liquid securities, and no more than 15% of assets can be invested in securities deemed illiquid. At the margin, the new rule could limit funds' appetites for municipal bonds. Treasury Curve: Laddered Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview November's bond rout was concentrated in the belly (5-10 years) of the Treasury curve. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 28 basis points on the month, while the 5/30 slope flattened by 8 bps. We believe that the yield curve has room to steepen further in 2017, based largely on the expectation that the Fed will maintain an accommodative stance of monetary policy at least until TIPS breakeven inflation rates are at levels more consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target (Chart 7). In our view, this level is between 2.4% and 2.5% for long-dated TIPS breakevens. However, we are reluctant to initiate a curve steepener one week before the Fed is poised to lift rates. Although we view a "dovish hike", i.e. an increase in the fed funds rate with no upward revision to the Fed's interest rate forecasts, as the most likely outcome. If we are wrong, an upward revision to the Fed's forecasts would cause the curve to bear-flatten on the day. At present, the market expects 55 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months (panel 1). If expectations remain at these levels until after next week's FOMC meeting they will be consistent with the Fed's median forecast, assuming there are no upward revisions. Also, as we pointed out on the front page of this report, the selloff at the long-end of the Treasury curve appears stretched relative to fundamentals and is likely to take a pause. This should provide us with a more attractive level from which to enter curve steepeners heading into next year. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 148 bps in November. The 10-year breakeven rate increased 21 bps on the month, and currently sits at 1.91%. The 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen to 2.06% from its early 2016 trough of 1.41%. However, it still has room to rise before it returns to levels that are consistent with the Fed's 2% target for PCE inflation (Chart 8). As economic growth improves next year the Fed will be keen to allow TIPS breakevens to rise toward its target, and will be slow to shift to a less accommodative policy stance. As such, we maintain our recommendation to overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries, with a target of 2.4% to 2.5% for the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate. While breakevens will continue to trend higher, the rate of increase should moderate to be more in line with the shallow uptrend in realized inflation. With the Fed in the midst of a tightening cycle, it will be difficult for the Fed to lead inflation expectations sharply higher as in past cycles. Trends in realized inflation will be more important for long-dated breakevens this time around. Core and trimmed mean PCE inflation continue to grind slowly higher, a trend that is supported by the PCE diffusion index (panel 4). Assuming the current trend remains in place, core PCE inflation should finally reach the Fed's 2% target before the end of next year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +111 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 11 bps on the month, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 5 bps. Credit card ABS outperformed by 14 bps, while auto ABS outperformed by 7 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 4 bps in November and, at 43 bps, it is well below its average pre-crisis level. Last month we observed that after adjusting for trailing 6-month spread volatility, Aaa-rated auto loan ABS no longer offer a compelling spread pick-up relative to Aaa-rated credit card ABS. We calculate that it will take 12 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated auto ABS to underperform Treasuries on a 6-month horizon and 9 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated credit card ABS to underperform (Chart 9). This spread cushion is not sufficient to compensate for the fact that credit card quality metrics are in much better shape than those for auto loans. The auto loan net loss rate has entered a clear uptrend, while credit card charge-offs are still near all-time lows (bottom panel). CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 74 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +269 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 16 bps in November, and has now fallen below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Rising delinquency rates and tightening lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are at their tightest levels since prior to the financial crisis. Further adding to our caution is that more than 6000 commercial real estate loans backing public conduit CMBS deals are set to mature in 2017. This is almost 5x the number that matured last year, according to data from Trepp. Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +158 bps. Agency CMBS still offer 45 bps of option-adjusted spread. This is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (43 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (22 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model The current reading from our 3-factor Global PMI model (which includes global PMI, dollar sentiment and global policy uncertainty) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 1.82%. However, the low reading mostly reflects a large spike in global policy uncertainty in November. Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor Global PMI model (which includes only global PMI and dollar bullish sentiment) as more representative of 10-year Treasury yield fair value at the moment. The fair value reading from our 2-factor model is currently 2.26% (Chart 11). At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4%. For further details on our Global PMI model please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Monetary Conditions And Rate Expectations The BCA Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) combines changes in the fed funds rate with changes in the trade-weighted dollar using a 10:1 ratio. Historically, economic downturns have been preceded by a break in this index above its equilibrium level - calculated using the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of potential GDP growth (Chart 12). Using assumptions for the time until the MCI converges with equilibrium and the annual appreciation of the trade-weighted dollar, it is possible to calculate the expected change in the fed funds rate for the cycle. The shaded region in Chart 13 shows the expected path for the federal funds rate assuming that the MCI reaches equilibrium at the end of 2019. The upper-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the trade-weighted dollar depreciates by 2% per year and the lower-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The thick line through the middle of the region corresponds to a flat dollar. Chart 12Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium Chart 13Fed Funds Rate Scenarios Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com 1 Defined as total debt divided by EBITD. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fourth Tantrum", dated November 29, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Secular Stagnation Vs. Trumponomics", dated November 15, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)
Highlights Duration: The odds of further bond bearish catalysts emerging during the next 6-12 months are still quite elevated. Maintain below benchmark duration. Global Bond Strategy: The most likely candidates for another bond bearish catalyst would be an announcement of substantial fiscal stimulus from Japan and/or a hawkish policy shift from the Fed. Investors should remain overweight core Europe, underweight U.S. Treasuries and neutral on JGBs. U.S. High-Yield: Given current spread levels and our default loss expectations, valuation in the U.S. high-yield market sends neither a strong buy nor sell signal. Feature In a U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report1 published in August we observed that, since the financial crisis, material increases in global bond yields have all been associated with a policy catalyst (Chart 1). We identified three such catalysts: the Fed's 2010 announcement of QE2, the Fed signaling its willingness to slow the pace of asset purchases in 2013, and the European Central Bank's (ECB) announcement of its own QE program in 2015. Now we can add the election of Donald Trump as a fourth catalyst that has spurred a tantrum in global bond markets. Chart 1The Four Post-Crisis Bond Tantrums The common factor that links all of these catalysts is that each causes the market to quickly re-assess its expectations about the future pace of monetary tightening. Interestingly, this re-assessment can be caused by either the announcement of a program that is perceived to be extremely stimulative or the announcement that monetary stimulus will be scaled back. Examples of the former include both the Fed's and ECB's QE announcements as well as the recent U.S. election. An example of the latter would be the 2013 taper tantrum. As in August, the goal of this report is to perform a quick survey of the major global economies in order to assess the likelihood that another bond-bearish catalyst emerges during the next 6-12 months. While we find it difficult to see a catalyst of the same scale as those shown in Chart 1, we assign high odds to the possibility that the announcement of fiscal easing in Japan will add to the bearish pressure on global bonds. We also assign high odds to the possibility that upside inflation surprises in the U.S. cause the Fed to adopt a more hawkish forward guidance, further increasing the bearish pressure on global bonds. We assign low odds to the possibility that ECB policy will contribute to the global bond selloff. U.S. Chart 2Fed Wants Breakevens To Head Higher The recent "Trump Tantrum" has sent yields sharply higher, and expectations priced into the U.S. bond market are now not far from the Fed's median rate hike expectations, especially at the short-end of the curve (Chart 2). In the U.S., the next most likely catalyst for sharply higher global bond yields would be the Fed signaling that it will adopt a quicker pace of rate hikes. Specifically, the Fed would need to cease revising its funds rate forecasts lower - which has been the pattern for the last few years - and start revising them higher. While the market was quick to price-in the likelihood of greater fiscal stimulus and rising deficits under the incoming government, the Fed will take a more cautious approach. In fact, with inflation still below target (Chart 2, bottom panel) and market-based measures of inflation compensation still depressed, the Fed will be in no rush to signal a more hawkish policy stance. We expect the Fed will follow through with an expected rate increase in December, but that the median expectation will continue to call for only two more hikes in 2017. The Fed is only likely to shift toward a more hawkish policy stance once inflation expectations are more firmly anchored around levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target. This corresponds to a range of 2.4% to 2.5% on the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Chart 2, second panel). Assuming that U.S. economic growth continues to accelerate into next year, as we expect, then the 5y5y TIPS breakeven rate could reach this target sometime in the middle of 2017. At that point, a more hawkish Fed policy becomes more likely. In the meantime, while the "Trump Tantrum" is likely to take a pause in the near-term (next 1-2 months), it may not have run its course just yet. If U.S. growth is strong in 2017 and the Trump administration appears to be making progress implementing its more stimulative policies, then the Treasury curve will likely resume its bear-steepening trend in the first half of next year.2 Euro Area Chart 3Strong Growth, But Plenty Of Slack According to the OECD and others, including the European Commission and ECB, trend GDP growth in the Eurozone is below 1%. In fact, most estimates center around 0.7%. This means that as long as GDP growth is maintained above these levels we should expect the labor market to continue to tighten. At least for now, the data suggest that growth is likely to remain well above trend. Led by gains in both the services and manufacturing indexes, the euro area's composite PMI jumped from 53.3 to 54.1 in November. The composite PMI has a good track record of leading European GDP growth (Chart 3), and the current reading is consistent with GDP growth of 2%. Despite strong growth, the ECB's policy stance is likely to remain accommodative for quite some time and is unlikely to spur a global bond tantrum within our 6-12 month investment horizon. The fact that core inflation remains below 1% (Chart 3, panel 3) tells us that the output gap in the euro area is still very wide. It will take a prolonged period of strong growth for the output gap to close and for inflationary pressures to mount. In prior cycles inflation has not begun to accelerate until the unemployment rate was below 9% (shaded regions in Chart 3). An announcement from the ECB that it will cease its asset purchase program because the economy has made adequate progress toward its economic and inflation goals would likely spur a large rise in global bond yields. However, this is unlikely to occur until the unemployment rate is below 9% and inflation is in an uptrend. As we argued in a recent Global Fixed Income Strategy report,3 the ECB will be able to alter the rules regarding the quantity of bonds available for purchase as is necessary to keep the program in place. Japan The Bank of Japan (BoJ) recently switched to a policy framework that involves targeting a level of yields as opposed to a quantity of purchases. In our view, this sends a pretty strong signal that monetary policy is close to being exhausted and that fiscal policy must take up the baton of Abenomics. While the timing and amount of any additional fiscal spending is not clear, it is probably necessary if policymakers are serious about reaching their 2% inflation goal. Chart 4Policy Action Required In Japan At present, the Japanese Diet is currently deliberating the third revision to the second supplementary budget and government officials have signaled that there will be more coordination between monetary and fiscal policy in the future. The government is also debating ways to boost household income, including raising government wages, lifting the minimum wage and providing tax incentives for the private sector to be more generous on the wage front. While any fiscal measures would not spur an increase in nominal JGB yields (because the BoJ will retain the cap), they would spur an increase in inflation expectations and a decline in real yields (Chart 4). We also think that the reflationary impulse would be felt by bond markets in the rest of the world, and that large enough fiscal stimulus from Japan would pressure global bond yields higher even though JGBs remain capped. Admittedly, the cap on nominal JGB yields would limit the contagion from Japanese fiscal stimulus to the rest of the global bond market. As would the impact of a depreciating yen relative to the euro and U.S. dollar. However, we also suspect that the shift toward greater fiscal stimulus in both the U.S. and Japan would cause investors to revise their global growth expectations higher, and that this impact would dominate in terms of the impact on global bond yields. Investment Conclusions The odds of further bond bearish catalysts emerging during the next 6-12 months remain quite elevated. The most likely candidates would be an announcement of substantial fiscal stimulus in Japan and/or a hawkish policy shift from the Fed. The ECB is unlikely to contribute to the bearish pressure on global bonds during the next 6-12 months. As such, we continue to recommend a below benchmark duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. In global bond portfolios, investors should remain overweight core Europe, underweight U.S. Treasuries and neutral JGBs. Valuation & Expected Returns In U.S. High-Yield A commonly used tool for assessing value in the high-yield bond market is a default-adjusted spread. That is, we formulate an expectation for default losses during our investment horizon and compare it to the spread that is currently on offer. If the current spread is elevated compared to our expectation for default losses then the default-adjusted spread is high and we would see good value in high-yield bonds relative to equivalent-duration Treasuries. This week we examine two different formulations of a default-adjusted spread for the U.S. high-yield market and test how well each corresponds to excess junk returns. The first measure we look at is a true ex-ante measure. It relies only on data that are available in real time, and can therefore be used as part of a trading strategy. Specifically, our ex-ante default-adjusted spread is calculated as the average option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. High-Yield index less an expectation of default losses for the subsequent 12 month period. Expected default losses are calculated by taking the Moody's baseline forecast for the U.S. speculative grade default rate during the next 12 months and multiplying it by 1 minus our forecast of the recovery rate for this same period. We forecast the recovery rate based on its historical relationship with the default rate. The second measure we examine is an ex-post default-adjusted spread. In this case we look at the average spread of the index less actual default losses that are realized during the subsequent 12 months. As such, this measure can only be calculated after the fact. Comparing the ex-ante and ex-post measures, we see that both tend to reside within a range of 200 to 300 basis points. However, the ex-post measure periodically shows a negative value while the ex-ante measure is more often above 300 bps (Chart 5). This tells us that when forecasting default losses it is more common to underestimate default losses, rather than overestimate them. Chart 5Distribution of Default-Adjusted Spreads Over Time The next thing we look at is how closely each measure aligns with high-yield excess returns (Charts 6 & 7). Our ex-ante measure explains 34% of the variation in high-yield excess returns since 2002 (when our sample begins). Predictably, the ex-post measure, which removes the error surrounding the default loss forecast, explains a greater proportion of the variation in excess junk returns (53%). Our sample period is also longer for the ex-post measure, beginning in 1995. Chart 612-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs.##br## Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Chart 712-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs. ##br##Ex-Post Default-Adjusted Spread (1995 - Present) The current average option-adjusted spread for the High-Yield index is 459 bps. If we incorporate the Moody's baseline forecast for the default rate during the next 12 months (4.1%) and our forecast for the recovery rate (39%), then we calculate an ex-ante default-adjusted spread of 210 bps. Using the relationship in Chart 6, this translates into an expected 12-month excess return of -26 bps. If we assume there is no error in our forecast then we can use the relationship in Chart 7. In that case, our expected 12-month excess return would be +55 bps. Of course, that exercise imposes a linear relationship between excess returns and the default-adjusted spread and doesn't consider that there is considerable variation in actual excess returns around this trendline. For that reason, in Charts 8 & 9 we split both our default-adjusted spread measures into intervals of 50 basis points. For each interval we display the average 12-month excess return along with a 90% confidence interval for where those returns are likely to fall. Chart 812-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & 90% Confidence Intervals: ##br##Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Chart 912-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & 90% Confidence Intervals:##br## Ex-Post Default-Adjusted Spread Specifically, the blue dots in Charts 8 & 9 show the 12-month excess return that is earned on average when the default-adjusted spread falls into a particular interval. The top and bottom edges of the vertical lines correspond to the upper and lower limits of the 90% confidence interval. More statistics related to the 12-month excess returns that have been observed when the default-adjusted spread falls into a specific interval can be found in the Appendix to this report. The main message from these charts is that a default-adjusted spread below 100 bps is a powerful sell signal, while a default-adjusted spread above 350 bps is a powerful buy signal. Between those two thresholds the signal is less clear. Bottom Line: Given current spread levels and our default loss expectations, valuation in the U.S. high-yield market sends neither a strong buy nor sell signal, but is consistent with small positive excess returns. Our inclination is to remain cautious on U.S. high-yield for the time being, but to look for opportunities to upgrade from more attractive valuations. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Tantrum Theory Of Global Bond Yields", dated August 16, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated October 25, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com Appendix Table 112-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Table 212-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification