Financial Markets

Special Report

Highlights Value is the most storied of all the factors discovered by academicians, and some of the most revered investors of all time have been those most closely associated with value investing. Over the nearly 92 years covered by Fama and French's data set, stocks with the highest book-to-price multiples have outperformed the overall market by three percentage points annually, but they have underperformed by two percentage points a year since their pre-financial-crisis peak. Fama and French's top value cohort has spent much of the post-crisis period mired at relative levels it first surpassed in early 2001, leading to whispers that value might be finished. It may take another year or two, but nothing ails value that a good bear market couldn't cure. The most popular value indexes are poor proxies for the value factor identified by Fama and French. We turn to our proprietary Equity Trading Strategy service's model for better insight into the metrics that separate value stocks from the rest of the field. Feature Macro students and investors are captivated by "factors," independent variables that are widely recognized as persistent drivers of equity returns, and BCA researchers are no exception. Although we have little time for the new factor "discoveries" that are accumulating at a rate that might make a bitcoin miner jealous, the established factors - Value, Size, and Momentum - have earned their stripes. We are card-carrying members of Professor Fama and French's fan club, and well-thought-out strategies attempting to harness their insights merit serious consideration. This Special Report updates a Special Report published jointly by our Global ETF Strategy and Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) services in May with insights from a custom value index just created by The Bank Credit Analyst and ETS teams.1 It compares today's popular conceptions of value to the principles of Benjamin Graham, the "father of value investing," and finds that off-the-shelf value indexes fall far short of the value ideal. We seek to answer two questions with far-reaching investment implications: Is value dead? If not, how will investors know when it's about to reclaim its former glory? In our view, value is not dead, it's only sleeping, even if its hibernation is starting to feel like Rip van Winkle's. Although it is not yet time to tilt a portfolio in its direction, the Value factor is alive and well, and simply biding its time until the next bear market and recession. Decomposing value investing's performance across market and policy cycles shows that it edges out the equity universe when policy is easy and bull markets are in force, but crushes it when policy is tight and stocks are in a bear market. The investment strategy conclusion is one with the empirical record: non-dedicated investors should look to value stocks when the weather turns rough. What Is Value? As our ETF and ETS teams lamented in their initial smart-beta ETF selection Special Report,2 the principles established by Benjamin Graham and Fama and French have faded with the passage of time. The essential notion that value is a by-product of temporary dislocations has slipped from popular understanding, making room for a simplistic, one-size-fits-all index-construction method that grants bank stocks lifetime membership. Those who bothered to read Fama and French's paper quickly forgot step one of its methodology, which stated, "We exclude financial firms." Financials' higher debt loads depress their price-to-book multiples relative to their nonfinancial counterparts', making direct comparisons dubious. The result has been to tether off-the-shelf value indexes' relative performance to the relative performance of the Financials sector (Chart 1). Since Tech stocks account for a similarly outsized proportion of the market cap of most growth indexes, value vs. growth boils down to a binary choice between Financials and Tech (Chart 2). Style investing is presumably meant to be something larger than a head-to-head battle between Financials' and Tech's prospective returns. It is certainly a long way away from the margin-of-safety concept that Graham applied to every investment. Chart 1Value Indexes' Permanent Residents Chart 2In A Standard Index, Value Is To Growth ##br##As Financials Are To Tech What's The Big Deal? Shorn of the margin-of-safety concept, value investing ceases to provide investors with downside protection. Regardless of the metric(s) used to measure an investor's margin of safety (Graham preferred a multiple of future earnings, conservatively estimated; Fama and French found that trailing book-to-price in isolation best explained subsequent returns), securities bought with a large one provide investors with a cushion against untoward future developments. That cushion is readily apparent in Fama and French's high book-to-price portfolios' performance relative to low book-to-price portfolios', and to the overall equity market (Chart 3): they outperform in bull markets, albeit at a modest pace, but they blast ahead during bear markets and recessions (Table 1). Long bull markets, like the one that was mainly in force from 1982 to 2000, and the current one, which just established a postwar record of over nine-and-a-half years, are a drag on rolling (Chart 3, middle panel) and cumulative returns (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Making Hay While The Rain Falls Table 1Value Portfolio Returns, July 1967 - July 2018 By contrast, the S&P 500 Value Index offers very little protection in times of stress, nosing out the broad S&P 500 in the one-seventh of the time a bear market has been in force since its 1975 launch, while lagging the broad index over the other six-sevenths (Table 2). The result is steady underperformance that adds up over time (Chart 4), and mirrors the relative performance of the S&P 500 Financials (Chart 4, bottom panel). Since value investors are conceding performance to growth investors in boom times, they really need to make hay during slumps, which the S&P 500 Value Index has failed to do, outside of the bursting of the dot-com bubble. The empirical record suggests that the main off-the-shelf value index's construction methodology leaves a lot to be desired (Chart 5). Table 2S&P 500 Value Index Returns, ##br##February 1975 - July 2018 Chart 4A Simplistic Proxy ... Chart 5... That Can't Hold A Candle To The Real Factor Building A Better Value Index The standard value indexes have several shortcomings. They are backward-looking, overly reliant on earnings as a cash-flow metric, blind to serial acquirers' accumulation of book-to-market-flattering intangible assets, and oblivious to sector-neutrality's charms. The value metrics in our Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) model correct for all but sector biases. They incorporate forward P/E multiples alongside trailing multiples; they consider cash-flow multiples; and their use of price-to-tangible-book, in place of simple price-to-book, partially corrects for acquirers' cosmetic advantage. Our Bank Credit Analyst colleagues turned to the ETS software to screen for candidates that more fully live up to Graham's value ideal. To combat sector biases, they grouped large- and mid-cap U.S. stocks3 by sector and evaluated their value characteristics only against each other, identifying the top three (value) and bottom three (growth) deciles within individual sector silos. Then and only then did they bring the value and growth pools together into market-wide baskets. Every sector is equally represented in its value and growth indexes, which bring together the best- and worst-value stocks from every sector. The ETS approach, which may do a better job of screening out value traps than simple book-to-price multiples alone, shows promise. The ETS value: growth index has outperformed Fama and French's high-minus-low index by an annualized 4 percentage points over its 22-year life (Chart 6). The ETS index rebalances monthly, making it more costly to track than Fama and French's high-minus-low (HML) index, but does not ride the same Size factor tailwind.4 We estimate that the Size factor contributes more to Fama and French's HML than ignoring commissions contributes to the ETS index. Chart 6Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants When Will Value Regain Its Footing? The Value factor has underperformed the broad market before, but its rolling 10-year returns have never been underwater for so long. Relative to the bottom three deciles of stocks on a book-to-price basis, the top three deciles have spent much of the post-crisis period bumping along a level they first reached in February 2001, when the stock market was in the midst of furiously unwinding the excesses of the dot-com era (Chart 7). Seventeen years of sideways action have emboldened skeptics to suggest that Value might have met its end at the hands of overexposure and increased short-term pressure on professional investors. Chart 7A Historically Long Value Slump Count us among those who believe Value's demise has been greatly exaggerated. We've seen this movie before - the Value factor posts its strongest relative gains during bear markets and/or recessions - and the last 17 years have been market-friendly away from the crisis, when high book-to-price stocks uncharacteristically underperformed. Consistent with its comfort in adverse conditions, Value has performed best when monetary policy settings are restrictive (Table 3). Policy has now been accommodative for a record 10 consecutive years and counting (Chart 8), subjecting the high book-to-price stocks to a persistent relative headwind. Table 3High-Minus-Low* Annualized Returns By Fed Funds Cycle Phase, August 1961-July 2018 Chart 8Easier For Lo-o-o-onger The policy backdrop may provide the surest route back to Value outperformance. Based on the tight-as-a-drum labor market and budding inflation pressures, we expect the FOMC to maintain its 25-basis-points-a-quarter pace throughout 2019, putting the target fed funds rate on a path to cross our estimate of equilibrium sometime around the middle of next year. Tight policy would be conducive for Value outperformance and potentially plant the seeds for a recession and equity bear market at some point in 2020. As our ETF and ETS teams showed in their review of equity factors and the fed funds rate cycle, countercyclical Value naturally diversifies a portfolio with pro-cyclical Size and Momentum exposures,5 suggesting that Value exposure could be a welcome input to a recession portfolio. Investment Implications Prime time for the Value factor still appears to be a year off, but the time for considering new, or increasing existing, exposures is approaching, and another year of Fed hikes will bring it squarely into view. Value investing will never die as long as significant segments of the investing public pursue instant gratification, or are drawn in by the siren song of potentially supercharged growth opportunities.6 The current cycle is simply extended, and just as it remains appropriate to stick with equities overall, it remains appropriate from a factor perspective to de-emphasize Value in the near term. We remain on the style-investing sidelines, waiting for the next policy-cycle phase. Once it arrives, investors would be well-advised to apply the ETS approach to uncovering the best value candidates for an equity portfolio. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the May 16, 2018 Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Smart-Beta ETF Selection Update - Is Value Still Worth It?" available at etf.bcaresearch.com, and the October 2018 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Is It Time To Buy Value Stocks?," available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the February 15, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part I - Value Funds," available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 3 The ETS model draws its index members from the top three deciles of U.S. stocks by market cap. 4 Fama and French's HML index is equally composed of the top three book-to-price (B/P) deciles less the bottom three B/P deciles of the stocks above the median market cap and the top three B/P deciles less the bottom three B/P deciles of stocks below the median market cap. The ETS index is drawn from the largest three deciles of all stocks by market cap. The net effect is for the HML index to include stocks with much smaller market caps than the ETS index, allowing it to derive an added benefit from the Size factor (smaller stocks outperform larger stocks over time). 5 Please see the May 17, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Equity Factors And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see the June 20, 2018 Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Why Anomalies Persist," available at etf.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Chart 1Second Half Rebound The leveling-off of bullish sentiment toward the dollar and the perception of fading political risk have caused spread product to rally hard since the end of June. Indeed, corporate bonds are almost back into the black versus Treasuries for the year (Chart 1). We caution against buying into either of these trends. We have demonstrated that divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world usually end with weaker U.S. growth,1 and our geopolitical strategists warn that American tensions with both Iran and China are poised to ramp up after the November midterms.2 Add in persistent monetary tightening and corporate profit growth that is barely keeping pace with debt growth, and it becomes clear that the corporate spread environment is turning more negative. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Evidence of deteriorating profit growth is required before turning more negative on spread product. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 78 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -16 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 8 bps on the month, and currently sits at 114 bps. Corporate bonds remain expensive with 12-month breakeven spreads for both A and Baa-rated credit tiers below their 25th percentiles since 1989 (Chart 2). Further, with inflation now at the Fed's target, monetary policy will provide less and less support for corporate bond returns going forward. These are the two main reasons we downgraded our cyclical corporate bond exposure to neutral in June.3 Gross leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector declined in Q2, for the third consecutive quarter (panel 4), though the declines have been quite modest. Dollar strength and accelerating wage growth will weigh on corporate profits in the second half of the year, and with corporate profit growth just barely keeping pace with debt growth (bottom panel), odds are that leverage will start to rise. Midstream and Independent Energy companies remain attractively valued after adjusting for duration and credit rating (Table 3). These two sectors stand to benefit from rising oil prices into next year, as is expected by our commodity strategists.4 Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 104 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +326 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 22 bps on the month, and currently sits at 316 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for default losses is currently 209 bps, below the long-run mean of 247 bps (Chart 3). This tells us that if default losses are in line with our expectations during the next 12 months, we should expect high-yield returns of 209 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming also no capital gains/losses from spread tightening/widening. But the default loss expectations embedded in our calculation are also extremely low relative to history (panel 4). Our assumption, derived from the Moody's baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate, calls for default losses of 1.07% during the next 12 months. Default losses have rarely come in below that level. While most indicators suggest that default losses will remain low for the next 12 months, historical context clearly demonstrates that the risks are to the upside. Meanwhile, with gross corporate leverage likely to rise in the second half of the year,5 and job cut announcements already trending higher (bottom panel), current default loss forecasts appear overly optimistic. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -7 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread tightened 5 bps on the month, driven by a 4 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp tightening in the option-adjusted spread. The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that MBS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off, particularly compared to Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS, High-Yield and Sovereigns. However, our Bond Map does not account for the macro environment, which remains favorable for the sector. Refi activity is tepid, and continued Fed rate hikes will ensure that it stays that way (Chart 4). Meanwhile, lending standards have been slowly easing since 2014 (bottom panel). Despite the steady easing, the Fed's most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey reports that mortgage lending standards remain at the tighter end of the range since 2005. This suggests that further easing is likely going forward. In a recent report we noted that residential investment has decelerated in recent months, with the weakness mostly stemming from multi-family construction.6 Demand for single-family housing remains robust, and we see no potential negative impact on MBS spreads during the next 6-12 months. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +38 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 151 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +67 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 70 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +34 bps. Local Authorities outperformed by 50 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +91 bps. Supranationals outperformed Treasuries by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. Domestic Agency bonds outperformed by 6 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +10 bps. After adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration, the average spread available from the USD-denominated Sovereign index is unattractive compared to the U.S. corporate bond space (Chart 5). Dollar strength should also cause Sovereign debt to underperform U.S. corporates in the coming months (panel 3). But the outlook could be worse for the Sovereign index. Mexico, Colombia and the Philippines make up approximately 50% of the index's market cap, and our Emerging Markets Strategy team has found that none of those countries are particularly vulnerable to a slowdown in Chinese aggregate demand.7 Mexico and Columbia are particularly insulated. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +153 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose 2% in September, and currently sits at 87% (Chart 6). This is about one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and only slightly above the average of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. In a recent report we demonstrated that while M/T yield ratios are low, municipal bonds offer attractive yields compared to corporate bonds.8 For example, we observe that a 5-year Aa-rated municipal bond carries a yield of 2.40% versus a yield of 3.42% for a comparable corporate bond index. This implies that an investor with an effective tax rate of 30% should be indifferent between the two bonds. Moving further out the curve, the breakeven tax rate falls to 23% at the 10-year maturity point and is even lower at the 20-year maturity point. The greater attractiveness of long-maturity munis is consistent across credit tiers, and investors should favor long-dated over short-dated municipal debt (bottom panel). Treasury Curve: Favor The 7-Year Bullet Over The 1/20 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve underwent a roughly parallel upward shift in September. While the 10-year Treasury yield rose 19 bps, the 2/10 slope was unchanged at 24 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 3 bps to reach 25 bps. The yield curve is already quite flat, and our models suggest that a lot more flattening is discounted. For example, our 1/7/20 butterfly spread model shows that 32 bps of 1/20 flattening is priced into the 1/7/20 butterfly spread for the next six months (Chart 7).9 With the U.S. economy growing strongly and the Fed moving at a gradual +25 bps per quarter pace, the curve is likely to flatten by less than is currently discounted on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. This argues for positioning in curve steepeners. In a recent report we also made the case for owning steepeners as a hedge against the risk that weak foreign growth infiltrates the U.S. via a stronger dollar.10 We found that the yield pick-up is similar for the different steepener trades we considered, and also that the 7-year yield has the most downside in the event of a pause in the Fed's tightening cycle. This argues for maintaining our position long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell, a position that has earned +37 bps since it was initiated in May. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 16 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +138 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 6 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.14%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 7 bps and currently sits at 2.25%. Both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. TIPS breakeven rates have held firm in recent months, despite the sharp drop in commodity prices (Chart 8). This suggests that investors' inflation expectations are increasingly being swayed by U.S. core inflation, which is now more or less consistent with the Fed's target (bottom panel). In recent reports we showed that year-over-year core inflation (both CPI and PCE) is likely to flatten-off during the next six months.11 But continued inflation prints near the Fed's target should be sufficient to drive long-dated breakevens higher, into our target range. This will occur as persistent prints near target cause investors' fears of deflation to gradually ebb. ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +29 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 4 bps on the month and now stands at 33 bps, just below its pre-crisis minimum. The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that consumer ABS offer attractive return potential compared to other high-rated spread products - such as Agency CMBS and Domestic Agencies - but also carry a greater risk of losses. The Bond Map also reveals that Aaa-rated credit card ABS offer a more attractive risk/reward trade-off than Aaa-rated auto loan ABS. We continue to recommend favoring the former over the latter. Credit quality trends have been slowly moving against the ABS sector and we think caution is warranted. The consumer credit delinquency rate bottomed in 2015, albeit from a very low level, and it should continue to head higher based on the trend in household interest coverage (Chart 9). Average consumer credit bank lending standards have also been tightening for nine consecutive quarters (bottom panel). Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 41 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +167 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month and currently sits at 83 bps (Chart 10). In a recent report we showed that the macro picture for CMBS is decidedly mixed.12 A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards for commercial real estate loans and falling demand. At present, both lending standards and demand for nonresidential real estate loans are close to unchanged (bottom two panels). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in September, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +54 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 44 bps. The Bond Maps on page 15 show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of September 28, 2018) Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of September 28, 2018) Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of September 28, 2018) Table 5Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election", dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl", dated September 20, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Deciphering Global Trade Linkages", dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For further details on our yield curve models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "No Excuses", dated September 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem", dated July 17, 2018, 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 Q3/2018 Performance Breakdown: The Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom benchmark in the third quarter of 2018 by +9bps. This raised the overall 2018 year-to-date performance to +6bps. Winners & Losers: The outperformance came mostly from our defensive duration positioning, which benefitted as global bond yields rose during the quarter, but also from successful country selection (overweight Australia & New Zealand, underweight the U.S., Canada & Italy). Our underweight tilts on EM credit were the largest drag on performance after the sharp EM rally in September. Scenario Analysis: The combination of defensive overall duration positioning and underweight allocations to EM and European credit should allow the model bond portfolio to outperform its custom benchmark index over the next year. Feature This week, we present the performance numbers of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio for the 3rd quarter of 2018. We also update our scenario analysis of the future expected performance of the portfolio based on the risk-factor based return forecasting framework we introduced earlier this year. As a reminder to existing readers (and for new clients), the portfolio is a part of our service that is meant to complement the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The model portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors, by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Broadly speaking, the portfolio did slightly outperform its benchmark index over the past three months, driven mostly by defensive duration positioning during a period of rising developed market bond yields. The portfolio would have done considerably better if not for a September rally in emerging market (EM) credit that flew in the face of our maximum underweight position in EM. We still have strong conviction in those two main themes - higher global bond yields and EM underperformance - and we fully expect our model portfolio to generate larger outperformance over the next year. Q3/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Duration Underweights Pay Off The total return of the GFIS model bond portfolio was +0.12% (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the third quarter of the year, which outperformed the custom benchmark index by +9bps (Chart of the Week).1 The main driver of the outperformance was our structural below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, which benefited as the overall Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Index yield rose to 1.54% - the highest level since April 2014. The portfolio's excess return got as high as +19bps on September 4th, before seeing some pullback in recent weeks as our main spread product tilt - underweight EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt - enjoyed a counter-trend rally in September from the bearish spread widening seen since the start of 2018. Chart of the WeekDefensive Duration Stance = Q3 Outperformance Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Overall Return Attribution In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +17bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter lagged the benchmark by -8bps (Table 1). The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Government##BR##Bond Performance Attribution By Country Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q3/2018 Spread##BR##Product Performance Attribution By Sector The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Underweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities beyond 10 years (+7bps) Underweight U.S. Treasuries with maturities beyond 7 years (+6bps) Underweight French government bonds with maturities beyond 7 years (+2bps) Underweight Italian government bonds (+2bps) Overweight JGBs with maturities up to 10 years (+1bp) Biggest underperformers Underweight EM USD-denominated sovereign debt (-3bps) Underweight EM USD-denominated corporate debt (-3bps) Underweight euro area investment grade corporate debt (-2bps) Underweight euro area high-yield corporate debt (-1bp) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and also adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during the third quarter (red for underweight, blue for overweight, gray for neutral weight). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Portfolio In Q3/2018 Spread product sectors dominate the left half of that chart, as credit spreads have tightened across the board since the early September peak. The best performing sector during Q3 in our model portfolio universe was EM hard currency sovereign debt, which has delivered a total return of +2.8% since September 4th (with spreads tightening by 50bps) after losing -0.7% in July and August. Similar performance stories occurred in corporate debt in the U.S. and Europe during the quarter. That credit outperformance comes after the sustained spread widening seen in virtually all global credit markets (excluding U.S. high-yield) since January of this year. The main drivers that prompted that widening - Fed tightening, a stronger U.S. dollar, diminishing asset purchases from the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ), some cyclical slowing of non-U.S. growth - are still in place. With our geopolitical strategists continuing to highlight the additional risks of U.S.-China and U.S.-Iran tensions intensifying after next month's U.S. Midterm elections, a cautious stance on global spread product - as we have maintained since downgrading our recommended overall credit exposure to neutral in late June - is still warranted.2 Outside of spread product, our model portfolio tilts generally lined up with the sector returns shown in Chart 4. We have overweights on two of the best performing government bond markets (Australia and New Zealand) and underweights on three of the worst performers (U.S., Canada, Italy). Interestingly, despite having overweights on two of the worst performing government bond markets - Japan and the U.K. - the excess return contribution from those countries did not hurt the model bond portfolio return in Q3 (+8bps and 0bps, respectively). This was due to the curve steepening bias embedded within our overweight country tilts (i.e. more duration allocated to shorter-maturity buckets, see the model portfolio details on Page 14), which benefitted as yield curves in those countries bear-steepened. Net-net, we are satisfied with the modest portfolio outperformance seen in Q3, given that the rally in global credit markets went against our more defensive posture on spread product exposure. Bottom Line: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio outperformed its custom benchmark in the third quarter of 2018 by +9bps. This put the overall 2018 year-to-date performance into positive territory (+6bps). The outperformance came entirely from our defensive duration positioning, which benefitted as global bond yields rose during the quarter, and from successful country selection. Our underweight tilts on EM credit were the largest drag on performance after the sharp EM rally in September. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to benefit from two primary trends: rising global bond yields and growth divergences that continue to favor the U.S. In terms of the specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we still prefer owning U.S. corporate debt versus equivalents in Europe and EM. When we downgraded our recommended allocation to U.S. and investment grade corporates to neutral from overweight back in July, we also cut the portfolio exposure to euro area corporates, as well as to all EM hard currency debt, to underweight. The latter changes were necessary to maintain our desired higher exposure to U.S. corporate debt versus non-U.S. corporates, although it did leave the model portfolio with a small overall underweight stance on global spread product (Chart 5). Importantly, we are maintaining a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, which is now one full year shorter than our benchmark index duration (Chart 6), even as we have grown more cautious on credit exposure. This is because we still see potential medium-term upward pressure on bond yields coming from tightening monetary policies (Fed rate hikes, ECB tapering of bond purchases) and increasing inflation expectations. The majority of global central bankers are dealing with tight labor markets and slowly rising inflation rates. While global growth has cooled a bit from the rapid pace seen in 2017, it has not been by enough to force policymakers to shift to a more dovish bias. Chart 5Spread Product Allocation:##BR##Neutral U.S., Underweight Non-U.S. Chart 6Maintaining##BR##Below-Benchnmark Duration Our underweights on EM and euro area spread product have left the portfolio in a "negative carry" position where it yields 34bps less than the benchmark index (Chart 7). In a backdrop of stable markets and low volatility, being short carry will be a drag on the model bond portfolio performance as we saw over the past month. Yet we do not see the recent market calm as being sustainable, with all plausible outcomes pointing to more volatile markets, largely driven by U.S.-centric events (more Fed tightening, a stronger dollar, U.S. growth convergence to slower non-U.S. growth, increased trade protectionism, higher oil prices due to U.S.-Iran tensions). We continue to suggest a cautious allocation of investor risk budgets against this backdrop. We have been targeting a tracking error (relative volatility versus the benchmark) for our model bond portfolio in the 40-60bp range, well below our 100bps maximum. Our current allocations give us a tracking error right at the bottom of that range (Chart 8).3 Chart 7The Cost Of Being More Defensive On Credit Chart 8Maintaining A Cautious Allocation Of The Risk Budget Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts Back in April of this year, we introduced a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors.4 For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the U.S. dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-U.S. yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Table 2B). This framework allows us to conduct scenario analysis based on projected returns for each asset class in the model bond portfolio universe by making assumptions on those individual risk factors. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate##BR##Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond##BR##Yield Betas To U.S. Treasuries With these tools, we than can attempt to forecast returns for each bond sector under different scenarios. We can then use those forecasts to predict the expected return for our model bond portfolio under those same scenarios. In Tables 3A & 3B. we show three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a one-year horizon. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Portfolio Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Our Base Case: the Fed delivers another 100bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises +5%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by five points from current levels, and U.S. Treasury yields rise by 40bps across the curve. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed delivers 150bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by +10%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX index increases by ten points from current levels and there is a sharp bear flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve (2yr yield +75bps, 10yr yield +40bps). A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed only hikes rates by 25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by -5%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX index increases by fifteen points from current levels and there is a modest bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. In this scenario, the Fed puts the rate hiking cycle on hold in response to a sharp tightening of U.S. financial conditions. Table 3A shows the expected returns for all three scenarios based on our risk-factor framework. The model bond portfolio is expected to outperform the custom benchmark index in all three scenarios we have laid out. This occurs even with the negative carry coming from the credit underweights in EM and Europe, with losses from credit spread widening projected to be larger than the yield give-up from being underweight. The excess returns are modest, however, with only 6bps of outperformance expected in our base case scenario and 13bps expected in the "Very Hawkish Fed" and "Very Dovish Fed" scenarios. This return distribution, with better outcomes occurring in the "tails", is a desirable property to have as it relates to the VIX/volatility forecasts embedded in the scenarios. Both of the non-base case scenarios have a higher VIX (Chart 9), even in the case of the "Very Dovish Fed" outcome where a severe U.S. financial market selloff (coming complete with a higher VIX) would be the necessary trigger for the Fed to reverse course and begin cutting interest rates (Chart 10). Such a backdrop would obviously hurt our below-benchmark duration stance, but would help our underweight EM/Europe spread product recommendations. Chart 9Risk Factors For Scenario Analysis Chart 10UST Yield Moves For Scenario Analysis Of course, our recommendations will not be static at current levels throughout the next twelve months. We increasingly expect that our next major allocation move will be downgrade U.S. spread product exposure and raise U.S. Treasury allocations, especially after the Fed delivers a few more 25bps-per-quarter rate hikes and the U.S. dollar rises further. This will provide a boost to the portfolio's expected returns through renewed spread widening and, potentially, a reduction of our below-benchmark overall duration stance as Treasury yields reach likely cyclical peaks. Bottom Line: The combination of defensive overall duration positioning and underweight allocations to EM and European credit should allow the model bond portfolio to outperform its custom benchmark index over the next year. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Time To Take Some Chips Off The Table: Downgrade Global Spread Product Exposure To Neutral", dated June 26th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 In general, we aim to target a tracking error no greater than 100bps. We think this is reasonable for a portfolio where currency exposure is fully hedged and less than 5% of the portfolio benchmark is in bonds with ratings below investment grade. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2018 Performance Review: A Rough Start", dated April 10th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns