High-Yield

Highlights Q2/2021 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps during the second quarter of the year. Winners & Losers: The government bond side of the portfolio underperformed by -21bps, led overwhelmingly by our underweight to US Treasuries (-18bps). Spread product allocations outperformed by +15bps, primarily due to overweights on US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Portfolio Positioning For The Next Six Months: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Feature The trend in global bond yields so far in 2021 has been a tale of two quarters. The first three months of the year saw a surge in yields worldwide on the back of rapidly improving economic data, the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines and supply squeezes triggering rapid increases in inflation. During the second three months of the year, however, global yields drifted a bit lower in response to more mixed economic data, the spread of the Delta variant and slightly hawkish shifts from a few key central banks – most notably, the Fed – even with economic confidence measures remaining upbeat across the developed economies. The decline in yields has not been seen across the maturity spectrum, though. The yield-to-maturity of the Bloomberg Barclays Global and US Treasury 10+ year indices fell by -12bps and -30bps, respectively, from recent peaks. At the same time, shorter term bond yields have been relatively stable as central banks continue to signal that interest rate hikes are still well off into the future. In contrast to government bonds, credit markets have remained calm with spreads tight for developed market corporates and emerging market (EM) debt. With that in mind, we present our quarterly review of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the second quarter of 2021. We also present our recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months (Table 1), as well as portfolio return expectations for our base case and alternative investment scenarios. The latter half of 2021 should prove to be even more challenging for bond investors, who must disentangle less consistent messages across countries on the Delta variant, vaccinations, inflation and the outlook for both monetary and fiscal policy. Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. We do this by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q2/2021 Model Bond Portfolio Performance: Mixed Returns Chart 1Q2/2021 Performance: Credit Gains & Duration Losses The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the second quarter was +1.13%, slightly underperformed the custom benchmark index by -6bps (Chart 1).1 In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -21bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +15bps. We have remained significantly underweight US Treasuries and positioned for a bearish steepening of the US Treasury curve since just before last year's US presidential election. That tilt was a big contributor to the excess return of the portfolio in Q1 (+63bps) that was partially given back (-18bps) in Q2 as longer maturity Treasury yields fell during the quarter. Our inflation-linked bond allocations in the US and Europe (+5bps) helped mitigate the loss on the government bond side from our below-benchmark duration stance and general curve steepening bias in most countries in the portfolio (Table 2). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Overall Return Attribution The sum of excess returns during the quarter from countries that we overweighted (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and Japan) was zero. Improving growth momentum and stronger economic confidence helped push yields higher in those countries. Therefore, those positions could not offset the losses from the underweight to US Treasuries. We did make two shifts in the country allocation within the government bond portion of the portfolio during Q2, downgrading Canada to underweight on April 20 and upgrading Australia to overweight on June 9. Neither change meaningfully contributed to the return of the portfolio. Meanwhile, our moderate overall overweight tilt on spread product versus government bonds fueled the outperformance from the credit side of the portfolio, led by US high-yield (+11bps) and US CMBS (+3bps). Overall gains from spread product were impressive in both USD-hedged total return terms (+95bps) and relative to our custom benchmark (+15bps), despite spreads entering Q2 at fairly tight levels. In the second quarter, improving economic confidence and easing credit conditions allowed spreads to narrow even further for corporate debt in the US and Europe, as well as for EM USD-denominated credit. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 & 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q2/2021 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Biggest Outperformers: Overweight US high-yield: Ba-rated (+5bps), B-rated (+4bps), and Caa-rated (+3bps) Overweight US TIPS (+4bps) Overweight US CMBS (+3bps) Overweight Euro Area high-yield (+1bps) Biggest Underperformers: Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity greater than 10 years (-17bps), Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 7 and 10 years (-3bps) Underweight US Treasuries with a maturity between 5 and 7 years (-2bps) Underweight EM USD sovereigns (-1bps) Underweight UK GIlts with a maturity greater than 10 years (-1bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q2/2021. Returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and 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 Q2 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral). Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Universe In Q2/2021 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. In Q2, the picture on that front was mixed. We were only neutral some of the biggest outperformers like UK Gilts (+312bps in USD-hedged duration-matched total return terms) and investment grade credit in the US (+430bps) and UK (+231bps). Our relative value allocation within EM, overweight corporates (+430bps) versus sovereigns (+527bps), also underperformed during Q2. We remained overweight government debt markets in the euro area which were the worst performers during the quarter (Germany: -25bps, Spain: -59bps, Italy: -67bps, and France: -83bps). The news was better on the credit side, where our significant overweight to US high-yield (+146bps) was a big positive contributor, as were overweights to US CMBS (+137bps) and euro area high-yield (+92bps). Bottom Line: Our model bond portfolio slightly underperformed its benchmark index in the second quarter of the year by -6bps – a negative result mainly driven by our underweight allocation to the US Treasury market but with an overweight to US high-yield providing a meaningful offset. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns & Scenario Analysis Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will continue to be driven primarily by swings in global government bond yields, most notably US Treasuries. Our most favored cyclical indicators for global bond yields are still, in aggregate, signaling more upside potential over at least the next six months, although the nature of the signal is changing (Chart 5). Our Global Duration Indicator, comprised of leading economic indicators and measures of future economic sentiment, remains elevated but appears to have peaked. At the same time, the global manufacturing PMI, which typically leads global real bond yields by around six months, continues to climb to new cyclical highs. This suggests that the recent downdraft in global real bond yields could prove to be short-lived. Our Global Central Bank Monitor is climbing steadily, indicating greater upward pressure on bond yields from the combination of strong growth, rising inflation and loose financial conditions. Admittedly, bond yields are lagging the upward trajectory implied by the Monitor with central banks deliberately responding far more slowly to the cyclical pressures that would have triggered bond-bearish monetary tightening in the past. Nonetheless, the Monitor, the Global Duration Indicator and the global manufacturing PMI and all sending the same message – global bond yields remain too low, suggesting a below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance remains appropriate. With regards to country allocation within the government bond side of our model portfolio, we continue to overweight countries where central banks are less likely to begin normalizing pandemic-era monetary policy quickly (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia), while underweighting countries where normalization is expected to begin within the next 6-12 months (the US and Canada). We remain neutral the UK, although we have them on “downgrade watch” until there is greater clarity on how severely the spread of the Delta variant is impacting UK growth. The US remains the biggest underweight. The modestly hawkish turn by the Fed at the June FOMC meeting likely marked the end of the cyclical bear-steepening trend of the US Treasury curve. A full-blown turn to a bear-flattening of the US curve will be slow to develop, but we fully expect the cyclical pressures that drove the underperformance of longer-maturity US Treasuries over the past year to begin leaking into shorter-maturity bonds. That trend already appears to be underway with 5-year US yields starting to drift upward at a faster pace compared to other developed market peers (Chart 6). Chart 5Cyclical Indicators Suggest Global Yields Still Have More Upside Chart 6UST Underperformance Will Shift To Shorter Maturities This leads us to make a change to our model portfolio allocations this week, reducing the exposure to the belly of the US Treasury curve (the 3-5 year and 5-7 year maturity buckets), while modestly increasing the allocation to the 7-10 year bucket. To neutralize the duration-extending implication of that marginal shift, we added a new allocation to US Treasury bills, thus turning this US Treasury shift into a “butterfly” trade, essentially selling the 5-year bullet for a cash/10-year barbell. Longer-term Treasury yields, however, are still in the process of working off an oversold condition that developed in Q1 (Chart 7). Duration positioning remains quite short, according to the JP Morgan survey of bond investors, while speculators are still working off a huge net short position in 30-year Treasury futures according to data from the CFTC. We anticipate that it will take another month or two to work off such an extreme oversold condition for US Treasuries, based on similar episodes over the past two decades. After that, longer-maturity Treasury yields will begin to begin climbing again, to the benefit of the US underweight (and below-benchmark duration stance) in our model portfolio. Chart 7Longer-Maturity USTs Working Off Oversold Condition Chart 8A Sharply Diminished Impulse From Global QE Outside the US, the bond-friendly impact of quantitative easing programs is fading, on the margin, with the growth of central bank balance sheets slowing (Chart 8). While outright tapering of bond buying has only occurred in Canada and the UK (within our model bond portfolio universe), we expect the Fed to begin tapering in early 2022. Financial stability concerns are expected to play an increasingly important role in future tapering decisions, with house prices booming in many countries, most notably Canada which supports our underweight stance on Canadian government debt. Australia is the notable exception to this trend towards slowing balance sheet growth, with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) maintaining a healthy pace of bond buying given underwhelming realized inflation. The recent wave of COVID-19 cases, which has left half of Australia under lockdowns that were largely avoided in 2020, will ensure that the RBA stays dovish for longer, to the benefit of our overweight stance on Australian government bonds. We continue to see the overall dovish stance of global central bankers as being conducive to the outperformance of inflation-linked bonds versus nominal government debt. However, inflation breakevens in most countries have largely completed the rebound from the depressed levels reached during the 2020 COVID-19 global recession. Our Comprehensive Breakeven Indicators combine three measures to determine the upside potential for 10-year inflation breakevens: the distance from fair value based on our models, the spread between headline inflation and central bank target inflation, and the gap between market-based and survey-based measures of inflation expectations. Those indicators suggest that the most attractive markets to position for further upside potential for breakevens are in Italy and France, with breakevens looking more stretched in the US, Canada and Australia (Chart 9). On the back of this, we are maintaining our allocations to inflation-linked bonds in the euro area in our model portfolio. Chart 9Less Scope For Wider Global Inflation Breakevens Chart 10Fading Support For Credit Markets From Global QE Moving our attention to the credit side of our model portfolio, we feel that a moderate overweight stance on overall global corporates versus governments remains appropriate. However, the slowing trend in developed market central bank balance sheets, as an indicator of the incremental shift away from the COVID-era monetary policies from 2020, is flashing a warning sign for the performance of global spread product. The annual growth rate of the combined balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England has been an excellent leading indicator of the excess returns of both global investment grade and high-yield corporates over the past decade (Chart 10). That growth rate peaked back in February of this year, suggesting a peak of global corporate bond excess returns around February 2022 Although given the current tight level of global corporate bond spreads, both for investment grade and high-yield, we expect future return outperformance from corporates versus government debt to come from carry rather than spread compression. Our preferred measure of the attractiveness of credit spreads is the historical percentile ranking of 12-month breakeven spreads, which measure how much spreads would need to widen to eliminate the carry advantage over duration-matched government bonds on a one-year horizon. Currently, only the lower-rated high-yield credit tiers in the US and euro area offer 12-month breakeven spreads above the bottom quartile of their history, within the credit sectors of our model portfolio (Chart 11). Chart 11Lower-Rated High-Yield Offers Relatively Attractive Spreads Given the sharply reduced default risks on both sides of the Atlantic, and with nominal growth in good shape amid low borrowing rates, we are maintaining our overweights to high-yield bonds in both the US and euro area. At the same time, we are sticking with only a neutral stance on investment grade corporates in the US, euro area and the UK. We do anticipate starting to reduce the overall corporate bond exposure later this year, however, based on the ominous leading signal from the growth of central bank balance sheets – and what that signals about the future path for global monetary policy. Within the euro area, we continue to prefer owning Italian government bonds (and to a lesser extent, Spanish government debt) over investment grade corporates, given the more explicit support for the sovereigns through ECB quantitative easing (Chart 12). We expect the ECB to be the most accommodative central bank within our model portfolio universe over at least the next year, with even tapering of any kind unlikely in 2022. Chart 12Favor Italian BTPs Over Euro Area Investment Grade One area of the spread product universe where we are starting to reduce risk in the model portfolio is EM USD-denominated credit. EM debt has benefited from a bullish combination of global policy stimulus, a weakening US dollar and rising commodity prices over the past year. We have positioned for that in our model portfolio through an overall overweight stance on EM USD-denominated debt, but one that favors investment grade corporates over sovereigns. Now, all of those supportive factors for EM credit are fading. Chinese policymakers have reigned in both credit stimulus and fiscal stimulus this year, with the combined impulse suggesting a slower pace of Chinese economic growth in the latter half of 2021 (Chart 13). Given China’s huge share of the global consumption of industrial commodities, slowing Chinese growth should cool the momentum of commodity prices over the next few quarters. A slowing liquidity impulse from global central bank asset purchases is also a negative for EM debt performance, on the margin. The same can be said for the US dollar, which is no longer depreciating as markets start to pull forward the expected future path for US interest rates (Chart 14). A stronger US dollar typically correlates with softer commodity prices and wider EM credit spreads. Chart 13Major EM Risks: China Tightening & Global QE Tapering Chart 14EM Supportive USD Weakness Is Fading In response to these growing risks to the bullish EM backdrop - including the rapid spread of the Delta variant made worse by the less-effective vaccines available in those countries - we are downgrading our overall EM USD credit exposure in the model bond portfolio to underweight from neutral. We are doing this by cutting the EM corporate exposure from overweight to neutral, while maintaining an underweight tilt on EM USD sovereigns. We expect to further cut the EM exposure in the coming months by moving to a full underweight on EM corporates. Summing it all up, our overall allocations and risks in our model portfolio leading into Q3/2021 look like this: An overall below-benchmark stance on global duration, equal to nearly one full year versus the custom index (Chart 15) A moderate overweight stance on global spread product versus government debt, equal to five percentage points of the portfolio (Chart 16). This overweight comes almost entirely from overweight allocations to US and euro area high-yield corporate debt. Chart 15Overall Portfolio Duration: Stay Below Benchmark Chart 16Overall Portfolio Allocation: Small Spread Product Overweight After the changes made to our US Treasury and EM positions, the tracking error of the portfolio, or its expected volatility versus that of the benchmark index, is quite low at 34bps (Chart 17). The main reason for this is that our positioning remains focused heavily on the US (Treasury underweight, high-yield overweight), with much of the other positioning close to neutral or largely offsetting other positions in a relative value sense (overweight Australia vs underweight Canada, overweight US CMBS versus underweight US Agency MBS). This fits with our desire to maintain only a moderate level of overall portfolio risk. The yield of the portfolio is now slightly higher than that of the benchmark, with a small “positive carry”, hedged into USD, of 13bps (Chart 18). Chart 17Overall Portfolio Risk: Moderate Chart 18Overall Portfolio Yield: Small Positive Carry Vs. Benchmark Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts After making the shifts to our model bond portfolio allocations in the US and EM, we now turn to scenario analysis to determine the return expectations for the portfolio for the next six months. On the credit side of the portfolio, we use risk-factor-based regression models to forecast future yield changes for global spread product sectors as a function of four major factors - the VIX, oil prices, the US dollar and the fed funds rate (Table 2A). For the government bond side of the portfolio, we avoid using regression models and instead use a yield-beta driven framework, taking forecasts for changes in US Treasury yields and translating those in changes in non-US bond yields by applying a historical yield beta (Table 2B). For our scenario analysis over the next six months, we use a base case scenario plus two alternate “tail risk” scenarios. We see global growth momentum and the Fed monetary policy outlook as the two most important factors for fixed income markets in the second half of 2021, thus our scenarios are defined along those lines. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries Base Case Global growth stays above-trend in both Q3 and Q4, putting downward pressure on unemployment rates and keeping realized inflation elevated. Ongoing global vaccinations lead to more of the global economy fully reopening, with the Delta variant not having serious widespread impact on economic confidence outside of parts of the emerging world. Excess savings built up during the pandemic are run down by both consumers and businesses as optimism stays ebullient within the developed economies. China credit tightening slows growth enough to cool off upward commodity price momentum. At the same time, falling US unemployment and surprisingly “sticky” domestic US realized inflation embolden the Fed to signal a move to begin tapering its bond purchases starting in January 2022. Real bond yields globally bottom out, while inflation expectations recover some of the pullback seen in Q2/2021. The entire US Treasury curve shifts higher, led by the 10-year reaching 1.65% and a modest bear-flattening of the 5-year/30-year curve. The VIX stays near 15, the US dollar rises +3%, the Brent oil price goes nowhere and the fed funds rate is unchanged at 0% Upside Growth Surprise The Delta variant proves to be far less deadly than feared. A rapid pace of global vaccinations leads to booming growth led by the US but including a fully reopened euro area. Chinese policymakers begin to reverse some of the H1/2021 credit tightening. Unemployment rates rapidly fall worldwide, while supply bottlenecks persist, keeping upward pressure on realized inflation. Markets pull forward the timing and pace of future central bank interest rate hikes, most notably in the US when the Fed begins tapering bond purchases sooner than expected before year-end. Real bond yields drift higher globally, but inflation breakevens stay elevated with the earlier surge in realized inflation proving not to be “transitory”. The US Treasury curve modestly bear-flattens, with the 10-year reaching 1.9% and the 5-year/30-year spread narrowing by 25bps. The VIX rises to 25 as risk assets struggle in response to rising bond yields even with faster growth. The US dollar falls -5% on the back of improving global growth expectations, the Brent oil price climbs +5% and the fed funds rate stays unchanged. Downside Growth Surprise The global economy gets hit on multiple fronts: the rapid spread of the Delta variant overwhelms the positive momentum on vaccinations, most notably in EM countries; Europe struggles to fully reopen; China policy tightening results in a larger-than-expected drag on global growth; and US households are reluctant to draw down on excess savings after government income support measures expire in September. Diminished economic optimism leads to a pullback in global equity values, lower government bond yields and wider global credit spreads. The US Treasury curve bull flattens as longer-maturity yields fall in a risk-off move, with the 10-year yield moving back down to 1.25% alongside lower inflation breakevens. The VIX rises to 30, the safe-haven US dollar rises +5%, the Brent oil price falls -10% and the fed funds rate stays at 0%. Chart 19Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 20US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis The inputs into the scenario analysis are shown in Chart 19 (for the USD, VIX, oil and the fed funds rate), while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 20. The excess return scenarios for the model bond portfolio, using the above inputs in our simple quantitative return forecast framework, are shown in Table 3A (the scenarios for the changes in US Treasury yields are shown in Table 3B). Table 3AGFIS Model Bond Portfolio Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis The model bond portfolio is expected to deliver a positive excess return over the next six months of +46bps in the base case scenario and +28bps in the optimistic growth scenario, but is projected to underperform by -36bps in the pessimistic growth scenario. Bottom Line: We are maintaining an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, against a backdrop of persistent above-trend global growth and a highly stimulative fiscal/monetary policy mix. We are maintaining a moderate overweight to global spread product versus government debt, concentrated on an overweight to US high-yield where valuations look the least stretched. We are making two changes to the portfolio allocations heading into Q3: shifting the Treasury curve exposure to have more of a flattening bias, while downgrading EM USD-denominated corporates to neutral. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high-quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Chart 1Employment Growth June’s employment report revealed that 850 thousand jobs were added to nonfarm payrolls during the month. This is well above the 416k to 505k threshold that is required to hit the Fed’s “maximum employment” target in time for a rate hike in 2022 (Chart 1). The bond market, however, didn’t see things this way. Treasury yields fell across the entire curve following the report’s release on Friday. This is likely because, in contrast to the establishment survey’s strong +850k print, the household employment survey showed a decline of 18k jobs and an uptick in the unemployment rate from 5.8% to 5.9%. Importantly, the household survey tends to be more volatile than the establishment survey, and we expect it will catch up in the coming months. We see the bond market as overly complacent in the face of what is shaping up to be a rapid labor market recovery that will only accelerate once schools re-open and expanded unemployment benefits lapse in September. US bond investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration.   Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 50 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +209 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports continued positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 99 bps, the 3/10 Treasury slope remains very steep and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is below the Fed’s 2.3% to 2.5% target range. The message from these two indicators is that the Fed is not yet ready for monetary conditions to turn restrictive. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is at its lowest since 1995 (Chart 2). Last week’s report looked at what different combinations of Treasury slope and corporate spreads have historically signaled about corporate bond excess returns.1 We found that tight corporate spreads only correlate with negative excess returns once the 3/10 Treasury slope is below 50 bps. Though we retain a positive view of spread product as a whole, better value can be found outside of the investment grade corporate sector. Specifically, we recommend favoring high-yield over investment grade. We also prefer municipal bonds, USD-denominated EM sovereigns and USD-denominated EM corporates over investment grade US corporates with the same credit rating and duration. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 122 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +468 bps. Last week’s report looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.2 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 2.8% (Chart 3). Using a model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we estimate that the 12-month default rate will fall to between 2.3% and 2.8%, slightly below what the market currently discounts. This estimate assumes 7% real GDP growth (an input we use to forecast corporate profit growth) and corporate debt growth of between 0% and 8%. Notably, the corporate default rate is tracking at an annualized rate of roughly 1.8% through the first five months of the year, below the estimate generated by our macro model. At 267 bps, the average option-adjusted spread on the High-Yield index is at its lowest since 2007. However, our above analysis suggests that these spread levels are still consistent with earning positive excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries because default losses will also be low. High-yield spreads also look relatively attractive compared to investment grade spreads. Investors still receive an additional 97 bps of spread as compensation for moving out of the Baa credit tier and into the Ba tier (panel 2). Given the accommodative macro environment, we advise investors to grab this extra spread. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -45 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries tightened 8 bps in June. The spread remains wide compared to recent history, but it is still tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) widened 13 bps in June (panel 3), and it is now starting to look more competitive compared to other similarly risky spread sectors. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS sits at 34 bps, below the 49 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds but above the 17 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS and the 30 bps offered by Agency CMBS. In a recent report we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.3 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will rise during the next 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons (4%, 4.5%) over low coupons (2%, 2.5%, 3%) within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS.  Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 4 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +91 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 16 bps in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +36 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 10 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +46 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 31 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +392 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 1 bp, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +26 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 3 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +26 bps. USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign bonds continue to offer an attractive spread pick-up versus investment grade US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Russia. Last week’s report looked at valuation within the investment grade USD-denominated EM corporate space.4 We found that EM corporates are attractively priced relative to US corporate bonds across the entire investment grade credit spectrum. We also found that EM corporates are attractive relative to EM sovereigns within the A and Baa credit tiers. EM sovereigns have the edge in the Aa credit tier. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +309 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We took a detailed look at municipal bond performance and valuation in a recent report and come to the following conclusions.5 First, the economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bond performance. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan includes $350 billion of funding for state & local governments, a bailout that came after state & local government revenues already exceeded expenditures in 2020 (Chart 6). Second, Aaa-rated municipal bonds look expensive relative to Treasuries (top panel). Muni investors should move down in quality to pick up additional yield. Third, General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis offer better value than investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporates. GO munis offer a breakeven tax of just 6% (panel 2). Fourth, taxable munis offer a yield advantage over credit rating and duration-matched investment grade corporates that investors should grab (panel 3). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 20% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2/10 Barbell Versus 5-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve underwent a massive re-shaping in June. Yields at the front-end of the curve rose significantly after the June FOMC meeting while longer-maturity yields declined. All told, the yield curve flattened dramatically on the month. The 2/10 slope flattened 24 bps to end the month at 120 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened 28 bps to end the month at 119 bps. As we wrote in a recent report, we believe that the June FOMC meeting marks an inflection point for the yield curve.6 Prior to the meeting, the yield curve up to the 10-year maturity point had generally been in a bear-steepening/bull-flattening regime, where the slope of the yield curve was positively correlated with the average level of yields (Chart 7). But bond investors appear to have left the June FOMC meeting with a sense that we are now marching toward a Fed rate hike cycle. In that new world, it makes more sense for the yield curve to be negatively correlated with the average level of yields: a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime. Given that we expect the Fed to lift rates before the end of 2022, we are now sufficiently close to a tightening cycle that the yield curve should bear-flatten between now and then. We therefore recommend that investors short the 5-year bullet and go long a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes. This position offers a negative yield pick-up, but it looks modestly cheap on our fair value model (see Appendix A) and it will earn capital gains as the 2/10 slope flattens. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 22 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +461 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates both fell 10 bps on the month. At 2.35%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is just within the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.18%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is below where the Fed would like it to be (panel 3). We see some upside in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates during the next 6-12 months, as we expect that the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven will find its way back into the Fed’s target range before the first rate hike. However, once the Fed starts tightening it will have a strong incentive to keep long-maturity breakevens below 2.5%. This means that a long position in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries has limited upside. We also see the cost of short-maturity inflation protection falling somewhat during the next few months, as realized inflation is likely at its peak. This will lead to some modest steepening of the inflation curve (panel 4). We do expect, however, that the inflation curve will remain inverted. An inverted inflation curve is simply more consistent with the Fed’s Average Inflation Target than a positively sloped one, as the Fed will be attacking its inflation target from above rather than from below. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +39 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 5 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +31 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 14 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +84 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. That excess savings has still not been spent and the most recent round of stimulus checks has only added to the stockpile by pushing the savings rate higher yet again (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum.     Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +183 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 4 basis points in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +82 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 66 bps in June, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to a whopping +522 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Even with the economic recovery well underway, commercial real estate loan demand continues to contract and banks are not making lending standards more accommodative (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in June, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +116 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 3 bps on the month and it currently sits at 30 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of June 30TH, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of June 30TH, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 9 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 9 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of June 30TH, 2021)   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Post-FOMC Credit Environment”, dated June 29, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying”, dated June 22, 2021.

Highlights Spread Product: The macro environment is highly supportive for spread product and it will likely remain supportive for the next 12-18 months, at least until the yield curve flattens to below 50 bps. Remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries in US bond portfolios. High-Yield: High-yield spreads still look fairly valued, or even slightly cheap, compared to our base case outlook for corporate defaults. Investors should continue to favor high-yield over investment grade corporates and maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield in US bond portfolios. EM Corporates: Within the A and Baa credit tiers, US bond investors should favor USD-denominated EM corporates over USD-denominated EM sovereigns and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Within the Aa credit tier, investors should favor USD-denominated EM sovereigns over USD-denominated EM corporates and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Feature Chart 1Fed Meeting Didn't Shock Credit Markets Last week’s report looked at how the June FOMC meeting prompted a massive re-shaping of the Treasury curve.1 It didn’t discuss, however, the impact that June’s meeting had on credit spreads. There’s a simple reason for this. Corporate bond spreads didn’t move very much post-FOMC. In fact, neither investment grade nor high-yield spreads have widened significantly during the past two weeks, despite the Fed’s apparent “hawkish turn” (Chart 1). The VIX jumped briefly above 20 in the days following the Fed meeting but it has since re-discovered its lows (Chart 1, bottom panel). This week’s report considers whether the corporate bond market is too complacent. The first section updates our assessment of where we are in the credit cycle based on two indicators that did see large swings post-Fed. The second section updates our outlook for high-yield defaults and considers whether junk spreads continue to offer adequate compensation. Finally, the third section of this report presents an introductory look at valuation in the USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) corporate sector. We find that, for the most part, investment grade EM corporates are attractively valued relative to EM sovereigns and US corporates of the same credit rating and duration. Credit Cycle Update Chart 2Credit Cycle Indicators As we have repeatedly stated in past research, the slope of the yield curve is a very important credit cycle indicator.2 We have documented that spread product tends to outperform duration-matched Treasuries by a wide margin when the yield curve is steep. This outperformance tapers off once the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope falls below 50 bps and it falls off even more when the slope dips below zero.3 With that in mind, it is notable that the Treasury curve flattened dramatically following the June FOMC meeting (Chart 2). At 106 bps, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope remains well above the 50 bps threshold that would start to get concerning for spread product. However, it’s likely that the yield curve will continue to flatten as we approach a Fed rate hike in 2022. In other words, we expect that monetary conditions will turn sufficiently restrictive for us to reduce our recommended spread product allocation within the next 12-18 months. On the other hand, one positive development for spread product returns is that the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate declined following the June FOMC meeting. In fact, it is now below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target (Chart 2, bottom panel). This is a positive development for spread product because the Fed will strive to ensure that monetary conditions stay accommodative at least until these long-dated inflation expectations are consistent with the 2.3% to 2.5% target. Or put differently, a rebound in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates back to the target range will slow the near-term pace of curve flattening, giving the credit cycle a small amount of extra running room. In short, the macro environment is highly supportive for spread product and it will likely remain supportive for the next 12-18 months, at least until the yield curve flattens to below 50 bps. Investment Grade Corporates The highly supportive macro environment applies to investment grade corporate bonds, just as it does to all spread sectors. However, investment grade corporates have the problem that valuation is extremely tight. Much like a flat yield curve environment, a tight spread environment tends to coincide with low excess corporate bond returns. However, our research reveals that tight spreads alone are not sufficient for investment grade corporates to underperform duration-matched Treasuries. Table 1 classifies each month since May 1973 based on the investment grade corporate bond spread and the 3/10 Treasury slope. It then shows a 90% confidence interval for corporate bond excess returns during the following 12 months. It shows that, even when the corporate bond spread is below 100 bps (it is 81 bps today), investment grade corporates still tend to outperform duration-matched Treasuries as long as the 3/10 Treasury slope is above 50 bps. Table 1Expected 12-Month Corporate Bond Excess Return* (BPs) Based On OAS And Yield Curve Slope Bottom Line: The yield curve has started to flatten but it remains very steep, consistent with spread product outperforming duration-matched Treasuries. We remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries but will re-consider this position once the yield curve flattens to below 50 bps. We expect this could happen within the next 12-18 months. We maintain only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds because of stretched valuations. We see more attractive opportunities in high-yield corporates (see next section), municipal bonds, USD-denominated EM sovereigns and USD-denominated EM corporates (see final section below). High-Yield Default Update We last updated our default rate outlook in March.4 At that time, we concluded that junk spreads offered adequate compensation for expected default losses. Since then, we have received nonfinancial corporate sector profit and debt growth data for the first quarter of 2021, crucial inputs to our macro-based default rate model. Our macro-based model of the 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate is based on nonfinancial corporate sector gross leverage (i.e. pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards (Chart 3). Lending standards enter our model with a lag, but we need a forward-looking estimate of gross leverage for our model to generate predictions. Chart 3Macro-Driven Default Rate Model To estimate gross leverage we first model corporate profit growth based on real GDP (Chart 4) and assume that real GDP grows by 7% over the next four quarters, consistent with the Fed’s median forecast. This gives us a profit growth expectation of roughly 30%. Chart 4Profit & Debt Growth We also need an estimate for corporate debt growth. Corporate debt exploded last year, growing 10% in 2020, but it then slowed to an annualized rate of 4% in Q1 2021. We think corporate debt growth will remain slow going forward. The nonfinancial corporate sector financing gap has been negative in each of the past four quarters (Chart 4, bottom panel), meaning that retained earnings have exceeded capital expenditures. In other words, firms have built up a lot of excess capital that can be deployed in place of debt to finance new investment opportunities. Table 2 shows our model’s predicted 12-month default rate based on different assumptions for profit and debt growth. If we assume corporate profit growth of 30% and corporate debt growth between 0% and 8%, then our model predicts that the 12-month default rate will fall from its current 5.5% to a range of 2.3% - 2.8%. Table 2Default Rate Scenarios Next, we need to consider what sort of expected default rate is priced into the High-Yield index. Our analysis of historical junk spreads and returns suggests that we should require a minimum excess spread of 100 bps in the High-Yield index after subtracting default losses to be confident that junk bonds will outperform Treasuries.5 If we also assume a recovery rate of 40% on defaulted debt, then we calculate that the High-Yield index is fairly priced for a 12-month default rate of 2.9% (Chart 5). That is, junk spreads appear slightly cheap compared to the 2.3% - 2.8% range predicted by our macro model.  Finally, it’s worth noting that actual corporate default events have been quite rare in recent months. In the first five months of 2021 we’ve seen between 1 and 3 default events per month. If we extrapolate that trend and assume we see 3 defaults per month going forward, then we calculate that the 12-month trailing default rate will fall to 2.0% by December, before leveling off at 2.2% (Chart 6). In other words, the recent trend has been one of significantly fewer defaults than predicted by our macro model Chart 5Spread-Implied Default Rate Chart 6Recent Default Trends Bottom Line: High-yield spreads still look fairly valued, or even slightly cheap, compared to our base case outlook for corporate defaults. Investors should continue to favor high-yield over investment grade corporates and maintain an overweight allocation to high-yield in US bond portfolios. An Attractive Opportunity In EM Corporates This week we present an introductory look at the risk/reward opportunity in USD-denominated EM corporate bonds. Specifically, we look at the investment grade Bloomberg Barclays USD-denominated EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index. We compare this index to both the investment grade USD-denominated EM Sovereign index and the US Credit index.6 First, we look at recent performance trends and average index statistics (Table 3). Both the EM Corporate and EM Sovereign indexes have average credit ratings between A and Baa, so we compare their performance to the A-rated and Baa-rated US Credit indexes. We observe a significant option-adjusted spread (OAS) advantage in both the EM indexes, though part of the extra spread offered by the Sovereign index is compensation for its longer duration. The EM Corporate index sticks out as offering an extremely attractive OAS per unit of duration. Table 3Performance Trends & Index Statistics As for performance, we see that the EM Corporate index experienced less of a drawdown (in excess return terms) during the COVID recession, though it has also returned less than both the EM Sovereign index and the Baa Credit index during the recent upswing. Chart 7Spreads Versus Credit Rating & Duration-Matched US Credit Next, we look at each individual credit tier of both the EM Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index and the EM Sovereign index, and we calculate the spread relative to a credit rating and duration-matched position in the US Credit index (Chart 7). In general, we see that both EM indexes offer a spread advantage versus duration-matched US Credit across all credit rating tiers. EM sovereigns look better than EM corporates in the Aa credit tier. This is the result of attractive spreads on the sovereign bonds of UAE and Qatar. However, EM corporates clearly dominate sovereigns in both the A and Baa credit tiers. Finally, we consider the risk/reward trade-off in our EM indexes by using our Excess Return Bond Map. Our Excess Return Bond Map shows the relationship between expected return (on the vertical axis) and risk (on the horizontal axis). In Chart 8A our risk measure is the 12-month spread widening required for each index to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries divided by that index’s historical spread volatility. It can be thought of as the number of standard deviations of spread widening required for the index to provide an excess return of -100 bps. A higher value corresponds to less risk, and vice-versa. Chart 8B uses the same risk measurement, only we use the spread widening required to lose 500 bps versus Treasuries to assess the risk of a large drawdown. Both Charts 8A and 8B use OAS as the measure of expected return. Chart 8AExcess Return Bond Map (100 BPs Loss Threshold) Chart 8BExcess Return Bond Map (500 BPs Loss Threshold) The first thing that sticks out in Charts 8A & 8B is that Baa-rated EM corporates offer greater expected return and less risk than the EM Sovereign index and the Baa US Credit Index. This is true whether our loss threshold is set at 100 bps or 500 bps. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient data to split the EM Sovereign index by credit tier in these charts. A-rated EM corporates offer slightly less expected return than the EM Sovereign index but with significantly less risk, they also clearly dominate the A-rated US Credit Index. Aa-rated EM corporates appear to offer a similar risk/reward trade-off as the EM Sovereign index, though we know from Chart 7 that sovereigns have a spread advantage in the Aa credit tier. The bottom line is that USD-denominated EM corporates are attractively valued relative to investment grade US corporate bonds with the same duration and credit rating. EM corporates also look preferable to EM sovereigns in the A and Baa credit tiers. EM sovereigns are more attractive than EM corporates in the Aa credit tier. Within the A and Baa credit tiers, US bond investors should favor USD-denominated EM corporates over USD-denominated EM sovereigns and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Within the Aa credit tier, investors should favor USD-denominated EM sovereigns over USD-denominated EM corporates and should favor both over US corporate bonds. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “How To Re-Shape The Yield Curve Without Really Trying”, dated June 22, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think”, dated May 25, 2021. 3 We use the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope in place of the more widely tracked 2-year/10-year slope in our credit cycle research only because using the 3-year/10-year slope allows us to include more historical cycles in our analysis. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021. 5 Please see page 33 of the US Bond Strategy Quarterly Chartpack, “Testing The Limits Of Transitory Inflation”, dated May 18, 2021. 6 The US Credit Index consists predominantly of US corporate bonds, but also some non-corporate credit such as: Sovereigns, Foreign Agencies, Domestic Agencies, Local Authority bonds and Supranationals. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Euro Area debt loads have increased significantly during the pandemic. Debt loads are not uniform. While Germany and, to a lesser extent, Spain look best, France has a less attractive total debt profile than Italy. Government debt-service ratios are not a problem for Europe. Private sector debt service ratios do not represent an imminent risk, but the French corporate sector is an important source of long-term vulnerability for the region. As a result of this indebtedness, Euro Area bond yields will not rise much and will be capped below 1.5% over this business cycle. For now, Eurozone corporate bonds remain attractive within a European fixed-income portfolio. High-yield bonds are appealing, but investors should avoid the energy sector. Feature Like the US, the Eurozone economy has witnessed a large increase in debt following the COVID-19 crisis. This debt load will have a long legacy that will impact the ability of the European Central Bank to increase interest rates over the coming years. The French corporate sector will be a particularly vulnerable pressure point. Nonetheless, in the short-term, this uptick in indebtedness will not have a major impact on European debt markets. Disparate Debt Loads… Chart 1The Eurozone's Heavy Debt Load After a period of decline in the wake of both the GFC and the European debt crisis, total nonfinancial debt rose by 29% of GDP since the COVID-19 pandemic began (Chart 1). While some of this increase reflects a declining GDP, Euro Area Households and Corporations together added EUR609 billion of debt, while governments accumulated over EUR1 trillion more to their borrowings. The aggregate European picture does not impart the more complex reality. While all countries experienced a marked rise in indebtedness, some major economies are in a much more precarious position than others. The Good Among the largest Eurozone economies, Germany sports the most favorable debt profiles and represents the smallest threat to the Eurozone. Compared with the other major Euro Area countries, Spain shows healthier trends, even if its overall debt load remains important. At 202%, Germany’s nonfinancial-debt-to-GDP ratio is still below its all-time high of 211% (Chart 2, top panel). During the crisis, household debt rose by EUR296 billion or 4% of GDP, but it still stands well below the 72% registered at the turn of the millennium. In absolute terms, nonfinancial corporate debt has increased to a record, but it remains 5% below its 2003 high (Chart 2, third panel). Despite a 9% rebound to 70% of GDP, government debt still lies nearly 12% below its 2010 summit (Chart 2, bottom panel). In Spain, total nonfinancial debt rose by 45% of GDP since the pandemic started, but remains 12% below its 2013 all-time high of 301%. However, the private sector’s borrowing is well behaved, and it has only risen to 170% of GDP, well below the 227% level recorded in 2010 (Chart 3, top panel). Both the household and corporate sectors have gone a long way toward improving their debt situation, with borrowing 23% and 33%, respectively, below their crisis peaks (Chart 3, second and third panel). Spain’s problem is government debt. The pandemic forced the public sector to borrow EUR316 billion, which pushed its debt load to 120% of GDP (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 2Germany Is The Best Student Chart 3Spain's Previous Efforts Have Paid Off The Bad Chart 4Italy Remains Problematic Italian debt remains a troublesome spot for the Eurozone, which sheds some light on the higher interest rate commanded by BTPs. Burdened by tepid GDP growth, Italy’s total nonfinancial debt did not decline much in the years between the European debt crisis and the onset of the pandemic. As a result, overall nonfinancial debt jumped to an all-time high of 276% of GDP in response to COVID-19 (Chart 4, top panel). Private sector nonfinancial credit is high by Italian standards, but at 120% of GDP, it is low compared with other major European or G-10 nations. Italian household debt has hit a record high of 45% of GDP, which also compares well to other countries, while corporate debt rose to 76% of GDP, which is also well below historical highs and other nations (Chart 4, second and third panels). Italy’s perennial problem remains the public sector’s debt, which stands at 156% of GDP, the highest reading among major Eurozone nations. The Ugly The major Eurozone country with the worst debt situation is France, and we expect this country to become an increasingly large hurdle on the ability of the ECB to lift rates in the future. Next week, we will devote a Special Report to the French situation. Chart 5France's Debt Binge France’s nonfinancial debt towers above 350% of GDP, and the private sector nonfinancial debt has also hit an all-time high of 240% of GDP (Chart 5, top panel). No sector is spared. French households have accumulated EUR239 billion of liabilities during the pandemic, which pushed their leverage ratio to an all-time high of nearly 70% of GDP (Chart 5, second panel). Meanwhile, after rising by 21%, nonfinancial corporate credit stands above 170% of GDP (Chart 5, third panel). Finally, at 116% of GDP, public debt may not be as high as in Italy, but it is comparable to that of Spain (Chart 5, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The Eurozone indebtedness has hit a record high, but considering this factor in isolation oversimplifies a complicated picture. Among the major economies, Germany has the cleanest balance sheet, especially in terms of its private sector. Spain continues to sport high leverage, but the private sector remains in much better shape than last decade. Italy has made little progress, but it still looks good compared with France, where both the public and private sector borrowings stand at record highs. … And Debt Servicing Costs With the exception of the French corporate sector, debt-servicing costs do not represent a great risk for Europe. Chart 6Interest Payments Are Not The Government's Problem When it comes to governments, the picture is particularly benign. As Chart 6 illustrates, debt-servicing costs as a percentage of GDP or tax revenues are extremely low in both France and Germany. While these two variables are higher in Italy and Spain, they remain distant from the levels recorded during the European debt crisis. Beyond their low levels, a very accommodative policy environment limits the risk created by Europe’s public debt servicing costs. The ECB has purchased EUR1.3 trillion of government bonds since April 2020, which added to its already large ownership. Moreover, BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy service, as well as this publication, anticipates that the ECB will roll the stock of government paper purchased under the PEPP into the PSPP. Beyond the ECB’s actions, the NGEU funds also create the embryo of fiscal risk sharing in the EU, which limits how far yields (and thus debt servicing costs) will rise in the Italy or Spain. For the private sector, the picture is more nuanced. In Germany, household debt-servicing costs are low, both historically and compared with other nations. Meanwhile, BIS data highlights that the nonfinancial corporate debt services consume a larger share of operating cash flows than at any point over the past 20 years, but they remain low by international standards (Chart 7, top panel). Meanwhile, in Spain and Italy, both the household and nonfinancial corporate sectors sport historically low debt servicing costs (Chart 7, second and third panels), which also compare well to other OECD nations. Once again, France stands out. Its household debt servicing costs are historically elevated, even if they are not particularly demanding at a global level. However, the corporate sector spends a substantial share of its cash flow on debt, both compared with its own history and internationally (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Debt Servicing Costs Across Europe Bottom Line: Generally, the debt-service picture in Europe does not represent a major threat for now. While risks are particularly well contained on the government front, the French corporate sector creates danger for the private sector. Investment Implications The elevated debt load in the Euro Area, especially in the corporate sector, constitutes a crucial limiting factor for interest rates in Europe over the coming business cycle. Compared with global economies, the Eurozone corporate sector sports elevated debt ratios. As Chart 8 illustrates, the Eurozone’s net debt-to-equity ratio is higher than that of the US across most sectors, and even surpasses that of Canada, another country with a heavily indebted corporate sector, for telecommunication firms and financials. The picture is even worse when looking at the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio. Except for energy and utilities, the Eurozone carries poorer numbers than both the US and Canada (Chart 9). Chart 8Debt-To-Equity Ratio Comparison Chart 9Net Debt-To-EBITDA Comparison The picture for debt service payments is even more damning. Despite the very low European corporate bond rates, Eurozone corporations generally have poorer interest rate coverage ratios than both the US and Canada (Chart 10). This indicates that, unless the subpar European profitability is resolved, significantly higher interest rates will cause significant damage to the European corporate sector. Chart 10Interest Coverage Lags In Europe Chart 11The French Corporate Sector And Dutch Households Will Limit The ECB On this front, the French corporate sector once again stands out as the most likely place for an accident. As the top panel of Chart 11 shows, French firms are positioned especially poorly, with both their debt-to-GDP and debt-servicing costs among the highest in advanced economies. Meanwhile, in the household sectors, only the Netherlands represents a potential risk (Chart 11, bottom panel). The level of corporate debt in the Eurozone and in France in particular suggests that the current level of yields in Canada may represent a cap on European long-term rates. Thus, it will be difficult for German yields to move beyond the 1% to 1.5% zone this cycle. For now, despite the elevated debt loads of the European corporate sector, we continue to overweight corporate bonds within European fixed-income portfolios. The ECB will maintain very accommodative monetary conditions for the next 24 months, at least. Moreover, the European recovery, especially in the service sector, will improve the operating cash flows of the corporate sector, and thus, increase the tolerance of the private sector for higher yields in the near terms. Finally, the strength in the Euro anticipated by BCA’s Foreign Exchange strategists will limit the upside to Eurozone inflation, and thus, to yields in the region. Nonetheless, investors should avoid certain sectors (see next section). Market Focus: How To Play Euro Area High Yield Bonds? Chart 12Valuations Are Getting Expensive We have argued that investors should continue to favor investment grade corporate bonds within European fixed-income portfolios over high-yield corporate bonds. Eurozone investment grade credit still offered enough value to delay a move down in quality (Chart 12). However, this value cushion is thinning and spreads are only 10 bps from their 2018 lows. BCA Research’s Global Fixed-Income strategists have recently increased their allocation to Euro Area high-yield to overweight, with a focus on the Ba-rated credit tier, while maintaining a neutral weighting in IG credit.  However, European high-yield is also becoming expensive. The yield on the overall index is a meagre 44 bps away from its lows of 2018. Moreover, the breakeven spreads of European junk bonds have only been more expensive 11% of the time since 2000 (Chart 12, bottom panel). Despite these observations, high-yield credit is not a uniform block. Caa-rated debt still offers decent value, with a breakeven spread historical percentile standing at 27%. The stretched level of valuation suggests that investors should become more selective in the high-yield space, in order to avoid the industries with the worst risk profiles. To assess the sectors most at risk of experiencing significant spread widening or default occurrences in the coming quarters, we evaluate how the 10 main high-yield industry groups, as defined by Bloomberg Barclays, perform on the following credit metrics: Risk profile The share of firms rated Caa Growth in value of debt outstanding over the past 10 years Change in net debt-to-EBITDA ratio over the past 10 years Risk Profile Chart 13Risk Profile Of HY Sectors We look at the duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio to determine the risk profile of each sector (Chart 13). The DTS is a simple measure that correlates closely with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The ratio of an issue’s, or sector’s DTS, to that of the benchmark index is loosely equivalent to the beta of a stock or industry to the equity benchmark. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”); a DTS ratio below 1.0 indicates that the sector is defensive (or “low beta”). Cyclical sectors are expected to outperform (underperform) the benchmark when spreads are narrowing (widening), while the opposite is expected of defensive sectors. In Europe, only three sectors sport a high DTS. Within these cyclical sectors, energy clearly stands out as essentially being the one most at risk of underperforming during the next episode of spread widening. Meanwhile, materials, healthcare, and utilities display the lowest DTS ratios and should trade defensively relative to the high-yield benchmark index. Share of Caa-rated debt Chart 14High Share Of Caa-Rated Debt Implies Higher Risk Of Default The bulk of defaults happens in the Caa-rated space and below. Hence, evaluating sector risk starts by assessing the share of Caa-rated (and below) debt sported by each industry (Chart 14). Sectors bearing a larger share of low-rated debt should display higher spreads. Consumer non-cyclicals and healthcare have the highest instance of low-rated debt, 16% and 13% respectively, and yet their spreads do not adequately compensate investors for this threat. The energy sector also stands out: spreads are wide because, despite the low percentage of Caa-rated debt, this sector has amassed considerable debt and has seen a meaningful deterioration in net debt-to-EBITDA (see below). Meanwhile, utilities shine under this metric, as they have not issued debt rated Caa or lower. Debt Growth Chart 15Debt Growth Justify Spread Levels The speed and amount of debt accumulated during economic recoveries are other important determinants of future spread volatility, because the sectors that have rapidly levered-up are more likely to experience defaults. Chart 15 shows that, if we ignore the outlying utilities, then there is a robust positive linear relationship between this metric and spreads. Utilities, energy, and the tech sectors have added the most debt, while debt accumulation in the basic materials and health care sectors has lagged over the past 10 years. Crucially, tech and communications spreads trade below what their debt growth implies. Net Debt-To-EBITDA Chart 16Only Financials Have Improved Their Net Debt-To-EBITDA A rapid debt accumulation is not a concern, as long as earnings are rising more rapidly or at least at the same pace. From this case, we infer that companies are using the new debt issued efficiently, for CAPEX or to pursue projects exceeding their IRR. In this light, wide spreads are justified for the energy, consumer cyclical, and consumer non-cyclical sectors (Chart 16). Conversely, financials have seen improvement. Bottom Line: After surveying Euro area high-yield corporate sectors based on four credit metrics, it appears that the sectors most at risk are energy and consumer non-cyclical. By contrast, basic materials seem to be a good sector in which to hide.   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Associate Editor JeremieP@bcaresearch.com Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds Corporate Bonds Equity Performance Major Stock Indices Geographic Performance Sector Performance

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed will not immediately change its policy stance in response to rising inflation and inflation expectations. Rather, it will follow its current forward guidance and only lift rates off zero once the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. However, once the first rate hike has occurred, the Fed will shift its focus toward inflation and inflation expectations. Duration: The overnight index swap curve is priced for a total of 77 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that more hikes will be delivered and therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Corporate Bonds: High and rising inflation expectations will eventually pose a risk to credit spreads, but only once the Fed tightens policy in response. For now, we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries, though we maintain a preference for high-yield corporates, USD-denominated EM Sovereigns and municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds. Feature Recent inflationary trends are making the Fed’s job more difficult. Not only was April’s increase in core CPI the largest since 1981, but measures of long-term inflation expectations have also jumped. The 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has quickly risen to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target (Chart 1). What’s more, survey measures of inflation expectations have also moved up, in many cases to uncomfortably high levels (Chart 2). Chart 1Back To Target Chart 2Inflation Expectations Have Jumped All of this makes the Fed’s zero-lower-bound interest rate policy look increasingly untenable. Can the Fed really just sit on the sidelines as inflation and inflation expectations rise to above-target levels? Our expectation is that the Fed will ignore rising inflation until the labor market is fully recovered, but it may then need to move quickly to contain inflationary pressures. The result could very well be a rate hike cycle that takes a long time to start, but then proceeds at a rapid pace. The Fed’s Liftoff Criteria Are Different Than Its Criteria For Pace A crucial point about the Fed’s forward guidance is that the criteria that will determine the timing of the first rate hike are different than the criteria that will determine the post-liftoff pace of rate hikes. Liftoff Criteria Table 1A Checklist For Liftoff For liftoff, the Fed has been very explicit that three conditions must be met before it will raise rates off the zero bound (Table 1). Of the three conditions listed in Table 1, the timing of when the labor market will reach “maximum employment” is the most uncertain. We have written extensively about how the Fed defines “maximum employment” and about the pace of employment growth that’s necessary to achieve that goal by specific future dates.1 To summarize, we calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of at least 698k is required to reach “maximum employment” by the end of this year and average monthly payroll growth of at least 412k is required to hit that target by the end of 2022 (Chart 3). Chart 3Employment Growth Chart 4Labor Demand Is Strong Our assessment is that “maximum employment” will be achieved in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022, largely because employment growth must rise quickly in order to catch up with skyrocketing indicators of labor demand (Chart 4). The risk, of course, is that inflation continues to run hot as the Fed waits for its “maximum employment” condition to be met. If this occurs, we believe that the Fed will stick to its current forward guidance. It will ignore rising inflation until its liftoff criteria are met. Only then, will Fed policy turn toward containing inflation. Pace Criteria In a recent speech, Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida laid out three indicators that he will track to guide the pace of policy tightening post Fed liftoff.2 First, he pointed to inflation expectations. In particular, the Fed’s index of Common Inflation Expectations (CIE):3 Other things being equal, my desired pace of policy normalization post-liftoff to return inflation to 2 percent […] would be somewhat slower than otherwise if the CIE index is, at time of liftoff, below the pre-ELB level. [ELB = effective lower bound]. Chart 2 shows that the CIE index has already broken above its 2018 peak. It stands to reason that, all else equal, an elevated CIE index would speed up the post-liftoff pace of rate hikes. Chart 5Inflation Since August 2020 Second, Clarida noted that: Another factor I will consider in calibrating the pace of policy normalization post-liftoff is the average rate of PCE inflation since the new framework was adopted in August 2020. The annualized rate of change in core PCE since August 2020 is almost at the Fed’s 2% target already, and it will certainly rise to above-target levels when the April data are released, as was the case with core CPI (Chart 5). Finally, Clarida offered up a detailed Taylor-type monetary policy rule that he says he will consult once the conditions for liftoff are met: Consistent with our new framework, the relevant policy rule benchmark I will consult once the conditions for liftoff have been met is an inertial Taylor-type rule with a coefficient of zero on the unemployment gap, a coefficient of 1.5 on the gap between core PCE inflation and the 2 percent longer-run goal, and a neutral real policy rate equal to my SEP forecast of long-run r*. Chart 6Balanced Approach (Shortfalls) Rule* Recommendations Chart 6 shows the results of a very similar policy rule using median FOMC estimates for r*, NAIRU and the path of inflation. We use a slightly more pessimistic forecast for the unemployment rate and assume that it reaches 4.5% by the end of 2022 and 4% by the end of 2023. Even with those conservative assumptions, the rule still recommends a policy rate of 1.5% by the end of 2022 and 2.65% by the end of 2023. This is not to say that the Fed will immediately lift rates to those levels once it is ready to hike, only that the Fed will have a strong incentive to pursue a rapid pace of rate hikes once it finally lifts rates off the zero bound. Investment Implications For investors, the bottom line is that the Fed will not immediately change its policy stance in response to rising inflation and inflation expectations. Rather, it will follow its current forward guidance and only lift rates off zero once the labor market has reached “maximum employment”. However, once the first rate hike has occurred, the Fed will shift its focus toward inflation and inflation expectations. If inflation and inflation expectations rise further, or even remain sticky near current levels, the Fed will lift rates more quickly than many anticipate. At present, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a total of 77 bps of rate hikes by the end of 2023. We see strong odds that more hikes will be delivered and therefore continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Is Inflation A Risk For Spread Product? Yes it is, but not just yet. In past reports, we’ve often pointed to 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5% as a reason to turn more cautious on spread product (see Chart 1), and the recent rise in inflation expectations certainly does set off some alarm bells. High inflation expectations pose a risk to credit spreads because of what they signal about the future course of Fed policy. If the Fed responds to high inflation expectations by tightening policy into restrictive territory, then economic growth and credit spreads are at risk. All this remains true, but the Fed’s willingness to ignore rising inflation expectations – at least until “maximum employment” and fed funds liftoff are achieved – gives spread product a little more runway than usual. One way to illustrate this dynamic is with the slope of the yield curve (Chart 7). Historically, corporate bond (both investment grade and junk) excess returns are strong at least until the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps (Table 2). Currently, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is well above 100 bps and has shown few signs of rolling over. If the Fed was still following its old forward-looking policy framework, then the yield curve would likely be much flatter today. That is, the curve would be pricing-in some policy tightening in response to high and rising inflation expectations. However, as discussed above, inflation expectations are not currently the Fed’s primary concern and they will only become the Fed’s primary concern once “maximum employment” has been achieved and the funds rate has been lifted off the zero bound. Chart 7Spread Product Returns Are Strong When The Curve Is Steep Table 2Corporate Bond Performance In Different Phases Of The Cycle All in all, we are concerned that, if inflation expectations remain elevated, the Fed may quickly ramp up its post-liftoff pace of rate hikes, sending credit spreads wider. But we are reluctant to position for that outcome when we are still many months away from Fed liftoff and the slope of the yield curve remains so steep. Chart 8Low Expected Returns In IG Another factor to consider is that value in spread product is extremely tight. In fact, our measure of the 12-month breakeven spread for the quality-adjusted investment grade corporate bond index is almost at its most expensive level since 1995 (Chart 8). This doesn’t change our assessment of when restrictive Fed policy will cause spreads to widen, but it does reduce our return expectations in the interim. All else equal, since the rewards from being overweight spread product versus Treasuries are low, we will be quicker to reduce our recommended spread product allocation when our indicators start to point toward the end of the credit cycle. Though, at the very least, we will still want to see the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope start to flatten and approach 50 bps before we get too pessimistic on spread product. The bottom line is that high and rising inflation expectations will eventually pose a risk to credit spreads, but only once the Fed tightens policy in response. For now, we remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries, though we maintain a preference for high-yield corporates, USD-denominated EM Sovereigns and municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Overshoot Territory”, dated April 13, 2021. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210113a.htm 3 The CIE is a composite measure of different market-based and survey-based indicators of inflation expectations. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/index-of-common-inflation-expectations-20200902.htm  Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The backdrop for global high-yield corporates remains positive, and a rebound in global GDP and earnings will help ease leverage and interest coverage concerns. With improving global growth taking over the reins from central bank liquidity as the primary driver of high-yield returns, we have decided to reassess the sources of value using some of our key indicators for junk bonds in the US and Europe. The US and euro area appear fairly evenly matched on our valuation metrics but euro area high-yield still offers good value on an absolute basis. We are therefore increasing our recommended allocation to overweight, matching our similar stance for US high-yield. Within the euro area, stay up in quality, favoring Ba-rated credit. Retail and consumer products are attractive bounce-back sectors as Europe emerges from lockdowns later this year. Feature Chart of the WeekCentral Bank Liquidity Has Driven High Yield Outperformance The past year has been excellent for global high-yield corporate bonds. Unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus in response to the COVID-19 economic shock and market rout helped rapidly lower credit spreads in the final three quarters of 2020. As the vaccine rollout picked up pace and the reopening trade began to dominate earlier this year, high-yield corporates continued to perform well despite defaults hitting a post-2008 high (Chart of the Week). An improving outlook for the global economy is highly supportive for lower-rated corporate debt from a fundamental perspective, even if that same pickup in growth will put pressure on policymakers to dial back monetary accommodation. Already, growth in major central bank balance sheets – a reliable leading indicator of high yield outperformance – is slowing, with corporate spreads approaching historically tight levels. Thus, we feel it is timely to assess valuation metrics in the largest high-yield markets of the US and Europe – and the implications for regional high-yield allocations - as economic growth takes over the reins from central bank liquidity as the primary driver of spread product performance. A Cyclical Reduction In Corporate Credit Risk In its recently published Global Financial Stability Report,1 the IMF noted that the COVID-19 shock has pushed up global nonfinancial corporate leverage, measured as debt relative to GDP, to historical highs (Chart 2). Some of that rise is due to companies ramping up debt issuance over the past year in response to supportive monetary policy and favorable financial market conditions. Yet according to the IMF, about half of the rise in global corporate debt-to-GDP ratios from Q4/2019 to Q3/2020 was attributable to sharply lower output. Now, with economic growth set to stage a strong rebound this year – the IMF is forecasting global real GDP growth of 6.0% in 2021 and 4.4% in 2022 - a rising denominator should result in corporate debt-to-GDP ratios stabilizing or even falling over the next couple of years. This will help maintain a positive backdrop for corporate spread product, even if central banks like the Fed turn less dovish later this year, as we expect Corporate interest coverage, using the Refinitiv Datastream bottom-up aggregates of individual company data, paints a similar cyclical picture (Chart 3). The absolute level of coverage ratios fell sharply in 2020, accelerating pre-pandemic downtrends that had already been in place in both the US and Europe. Since Q4/2019, however, interest expense actually fell very slightly in the US, meaning that of the 1.5 point fall in the interest coverage ratio, 1.3 points can be attributed to declining corporate earnings over that period. The picture was also lopsided in the euro area, with 2.5 points of the 2.8 point decline in interest coverage over that same period attributable to falling profits. Chart 2Rising Leverage Is Not Just A Debt Story Chart 3Falling Earnings Are Responsible For The Decline In Interest Coverage Rapid improvements in economic growth momentum, fueled by reopening economies and increased fiscal stimulus (especially in the US), should lead to a cyclical rebound interest coverage ratios in both the US and Europe in 2021 and 2022. Bottom Line: The backdrop for global high yield corporates remains positive, and a rebound in global GDP and earnings will help ease leverage and interest coverage concerns. A Trans-Atlantic Comparison Of High-Yield Bond Valuations Chart 4Our Relative Overweight On US HY Has Been A Success Since March of last year, we have maintained a recommended overweight stance on US high-yield versus European equivalents (Chart 4). That was originally a relative central bank play with the Fed including US high-yield in its corporate bond buying program, in contrast to the ECB that was only buying investment grade debt. Our relative regional allocation on high-yield corporates has worked out well, with the US outperforming the euro area by 3.9 percentage points (in excess return terms versus duration-matched government debt) since the pandemic peak in credit spreads last March. Today, with high-yield spreads back near historical tight levels and the momentum of excess returns starting to peak, a forward-looking reevaluation of our US versus Europe high-yield recommendation along value grounds is in order. To conduct our reassessment of value, we look at five key areas: default-adjusted spreads; 12-month breakeven spreads; volatility-adjusted spreads; credit quality curves; and, lastly, the relative carry offered by high-yield corporates in currency-hedged and unhedged terms. Default-Adjusted Spreads As discussed earlier in the report, fiscal and monetary support have helped stave off the worst for high-yield corporates on both sides of the Atlantic, with default rates spiking far less than the amount implied by the collapse in year-over-year GDP growth (Chart 5). Forecasts for 2021 are sanguine—Moody’s expects the trailing 12-month high yield default rate to reach 4.2% in the US and 2.6% in the euro area in 2021, in line with the IMF’s sharp upward revision to growth forecasts for both regions. The outlook for default-adjusted spreads, which look at the index option-adjusted spread (OAS) net of realized default losses, is much more positive in the euro area however, given that they have a much more attractive “starting point”. The realized default-adjusted spread in the euro area was already inching into positive territory last year, as opposed to the deeply negative spread in the US (Chart 6). This alone makes it much more likely that euro area high-yield will deliver a positive return net of default losses. Chart 5The Default Picture Is Expected To Improve Chart 6Euro Area Spreads Are More Attractive On A Default-Adjusted Basis In addition, the potential range for default-adjusted spreads (combining default rates and recovery rates, see the shaded boxes in the chart) is much narrower in the euro area given the lower post-crisis volatility in default rates in that region, making outcomes in the euro area far less uncertain than in the US. Volatility-Adjusted Spreads Chart 7Falling US Spreads Have Overshot The Level Implied By Equity Volatility Another way to evaluate the attractiveness of the level of spreads, and how much further they could fall, is to compare them to standard macro volatility gauges like the US VIX and the European VSTOXX indices. Credit spreads and equity volatility are highly correlated, as both are measures of investor uncertainty that rise during risk-off episodes and vice versa. The ratio of corporate credit spreads to equity volatility, therefore, can signal if spreads appear stretched relative to the broader risk backdrop. The global rally in riskier credit has helped push down volatility-adjusted spreads for both regions, making them expensive relative to the historic mean (Chart 7). However, the divergence between volatility and high-yield spreads is much more pronounced in the US, where the volatility-adjusted spread, currently at all-time lows and 1.8 standard deviations below the mean, appears much less attractive. In contrast, while the euro area measure is still within one standard deviation of the mean and has room to fall further, as it did in 2007. 12-Month Breakeven Spreads To look at valuations in high yield corporates relative to history, we turn to our 12-month breakeven spread metrics. These measure how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus a duration-matched position in government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. On this basis, there seems to be a bit more value in US high-yield spreads, with the 12-month breakeven at the 32nd percentile compared to the 18th percentile ranking for European high-yield. Both markets are not cheap on this metric, though, with the lion’s share of cyclical spread compression having already been realized (Chart 8). This additional value in the US is concentrated in the lower-quality tiers, with B-rated US HY looking most attractive (Chart 9). Chart 8US And Euro Area High-Yield Breakeven Spreads Chart 9All Credit Tier Breakeven Valuations Are In the Bottom Half Relative To History Credit Quality Curves To further inform our decision on value across credit tiers in the US and Europe, we look at credit quality curves, which measure the incremental spread pick-up earned from moving down to lower credit tiers. For example, we look at the spread differential between B-rated and Ba-rated high-yield bonds within the US or Europe. When making the comparisons, we adjust the spreads to account for duration differences between credit tier sub-indices and the overall regional high-yield index. This adjusts for slightly lower index durations as we move down in quality.2 Our colleagues at BCA Research US Bond Strategy have pointed out that the spread pickup earned from moving out of US Baa-rated bonds into Ba-rated bonds is elevated compared to typical historical levels.3 Credit quality curves in the euro area tell a similar story (Chart 10). The spread pickup from moving into Ba-rated credit is slightly higher in the euro area on a cross-country basis while there is a more attractive pickup in the US from moving further down in quality. Chart 10US & European HY Credit Quality Curves Chart 11Euro Area Caa-Rated Spreads Have Room To Fall To Pre-COVID Lows As quality curves have compressed across the board, we can also use the pre-COVID lows in these series as an anchor for how much more narrowing we could see (Chart 11). On that basis, there seems to be a bit more value left in the top two tiers of US high yield while there is more juice left in the euro area Caa-rated minus B-rated spread. The Caa-B spread differential is now quite expensive for the US, sitting -140bps below its pre-COVID low, a reflection of yield-chasing behavior by risk-seeking investors in an easy monetary policy environment. As the Fed begins to take its foot off the monetary accelerator within the next 6-12 months, as we expect, this credit tier is also most vulnerable to a repricing of default risk. Index Yield-To-Maturity Chart 12Junk Index Yields At All Time Lows The hunt for yield by fixed income investors has driven down the index yield on lower-quality credit to all-time lows in both the US and euro area (Chart 12). This dynamic has played out at a time when falling interest rate differentials between the two regions have cut down the cost of hedging US dollar (USD) exposures into euros (or, alternatively, reduced the gain from hedging euro exposures into USD). Importantly, this reduction in the gains/losses from currency hedging allows for a more honest assessment of the relative attractiveness of yields on lower-rated corporates in the US and Europe, reflecting compensation for taking credit risk rather than currency risk. With the backdrop for spread product looking positive, it is worth considering the simple carry over a twelve-month period for holding high-yield debt, in both USD-hedged and unhedged terms (Chart 13). For the overall index and the Ba-rated tier, the US dominates completely, with investors in the euro area better off holding US credit even after paying the currency hedging cost. This dynamic is flipped at the B- and Caa-rated tiers, with euro area credit appearing dominant. Chart 13US Ba-Rated Debt Is Dominant On A Carry Basis An Additional Point On High-Yield Sectors Sector composition will also be an important driver of high-yield returns going forward. In the April 2021 Global Financial Stability report, the IMF noted that global high-yield defaults in 2020 were concentrated in sectors most affected by the pandemic. On a relative basis, the US high-yield index appears more heavily weighted towards those sectors – a picture that becomes even more focused if Energy, which is the largest industry group in US high-yield, is considered as a pandemic-stricken industry (Chart 14). However, the euro area does have a slightly larger tilt towards the hard-hit Retail sector. Chart 14Oil And Gas Was Hardest-Hit In 2020 An important implication is that the sectors that suffered the most in 2020 are also the ones most poised for a snapback this year as economies reopen and growth recovers. One way to approach this from a relative valuation perspective is to look at the relative industry-level cross-country spreads between the US and Europe, compared to the change in global defaults by sector from 2019 to 2020 (Chart 15). Chart 15Sectors That Saw Rising Defaults In 2020 Are Poised For A Rebound Sectors that saw a moderate-to-high number of defaults last year, such as Retail and Consumer products, offer higher spreads in the euro area. These will also be the sectors to benefit the most from a consumption rebound as Europe exits lockdowns. On the other hand, US spreads are more attractive than European spreads for the Media and Transportation sectors that saw a big increase in defaults in 2020. Importantly, while the US Energy sector also looks more relatively attractive on that basis, much of a post-COVID recovery has already been priced in, with US high-yield energy spreads below pre-pandemic lows. Investment Conclusions Having looked at our suite of valuation metrics, euro area and US high-yield appear quite evenly matched. On a default and volatility-adjusted basis, spreads in the euro area appear to offer more value while US high-yield largely wins out on a breakeven spread and carry basis. Thus, the case for favoring US high-yield over European equivalents is no longer as compelling as it has been for much of the past twelve months. We are therefore taking profits on our long-held recommended overweight stance on US high-yield versus European high-yield. We are implementing this change by upgrading our strategic euro area high yield allocation to overweight (4 out of 5), which matches our similar overweight recommended tilt for US high-yield (see table on page 15). Within our model bond portfolio, we are “funding” that upgrade by reducing the size of our recommended overweight exposure to core European sovereign debt in Germany and France (see the model bond portfolio tables on pages 13-14). On the margin, this decision also positions us favorably with regards to the consumption driven H2/2021 recovery in euro area economies highlighted by our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy.4 Within European credit, we recommend staying up in quality, favoring the Ba-rated tier as lower quality tranches do not offer adequate compensation for the increased credit risk. Bottom Line: Rebounding global growth will help maintain a favorable backdrop for global high yield credit. The US and euro area look evenly matched on our valuation metrics, but there is still good value on offer in the euro area on an absolute basis. Increase allocations to euro area high-yield, favoring the Ba-rated credit tier and Retail and Consumer Products industries, in particular. Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2021/04/06/global-financial-stability-report-april-2021 2 Please see BCA Research US Bond Strategy Report, "Ba- Rated Bonds Look Best", dated February 9, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 3 Note that this adjustment is made to facilitate more accurate comparisons within the credit tiers of the high-yield universe. No such adjustment is made to the Baa-rated credit spread, which is higher-quality investment grade and therefore not part of the high-yield universe. 4 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Special Report, "A Temporary Decoupling", dated April 5, 2021, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

The BCA Research Global Asset Allocation (GAA) Forum will take place online on May 18th. We have put together a great lineup of speakers to discuss issues of importance to CIOs and asset allocators. These include the latest thinking on portfolio construction, factor investing, alternatives, and ESG. Our keynote speaker will be Keith Ambachtsheer, founder of KPA Advisory and author of many books on investment management including "The Future of Pension Management: Integrating Design, Governance and Investing" (2016). His presentation will be followed by a panel discussion of top CIOs including Maxime Aucoin of CDPQ, James Davis of OPTrust, and Catherine Ulozas of the Drexel University Endowment. The event is complimentary for all GAA subscribers, who can see a full agenda and register here. Others can sign up here. We hope you can join us on May 18th for what should be a stimulating and informative day of ideas and discussion. Highlights Investors’ hunt for yield over the past few years led them to view leveraged loans as an attractive investment. Characterized by low volatility and attractive risk-adjusted returns, leveraged loans can add value to a portfolio. Leveraged loans tend to outperform their fixed-rate counterparts (for example, high-yield bonds) in an environment of rising rates and an attractive valuation starting point. Only the former criterion is true currently. Risks do exist, however. The increasing share of covenant-lite issues, and rising leverage in the corporate sector are of particular concern. Over the next 6-to-12 months, we do not expect rates to rise substantially, making the asset class somewhat unappealing in the short term. The longer-term outlook is attractive nevertheless, since rates are likely to rise as inflation picks up over the coming years. Feature In today’s environment of ultra-accommodative monetary policy, including low interest rates, and unattractive valuations for fixed-income risk assets, investors have no option but to look beyond conventional fixed-income instruments and dial up their risk appetite. In this Special Report, we run through the mechanics of the leveraged loan market. We analyze historical risk-return characteristics and compare leveraged loans to other assets. We also assess their performance during periods of financial-market stress as well as periods of rising rates and inflation. Finally, we discuss the risks associated with owning leveraged loans. What Are Leveraged Loans? Leveraged loans are a type of syndicated loan made to sub-investment-grade companies. Generally, these firms are highly indebted, with low credit ratings. A syndicated loan is structured, arranged, and administered by one or several commercial or investment banks.1 The majority of these loans are senior secured loans and are based on a floating rate, mostly LIBOR plus a premium (more than 150-200 bps) to account for their riskiness as well as to attract non-bank institutional investors. The interest rates on these loans adjust at regular intervals to reflect changes in short-term interest rates; this constitutes a benefit for investors worried about rising rates. Definitions vary when it comes to categorizing leveraged loans. Some group them based on the borrower’s riskiness and their credit rating. Others consider leverage metrics such as debt-to-capital and debt-to-EBITDA. Other classifications look at the spread at issuance or the purpose of the fund raising, which can include funding mergers and acquisitions (M&A), leveraged buyouts (LBOs), refinancing existing debt, or general funding. Over the past five years, approximately 50% of US leveraged loans issued were for refinancing purposes (Chart 1, panel 1). Within the three categories, LBO financing is deemed the riskiest, and this is reflected in its higher spread (Chart 1, panel 2). The leveraged-loan market became particularly popular in the mid-1980s as M&A activity was soaring (Chart 2). Chart 1Uses Of Leveraged Loans Chart 2The Boom In Corporate Activity In The 1980s Fueled Leveraged Loan Growth There are two common types of financing facilities:2 Term loans: An agreement to borrow a sum of money that is paid back over a certain payment schedule. These loans are mainly provided by non-bank entities. Revolving facilities: A type of loan that can be repeatedly drawn upon and repaid. These loans are mostly originated and held by banks. Estimates for the size of the leveraged-loan market vary depending on which criteria and definitions are used. The size of the leveraged-loan market, following rapid growth since the beginning of the past decade, is estimated to be over $1.2 trillion as of Q2 2020.3 While this represents only a small portion of overall corporate debt (it is only 15% the size of the corporate bond market), the interconnections between key market participants and the role of banks in the market has caught the attention of several regulators such as US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, debt investors such as Howard Marks, and international institutions such as the Bank For International Settlements (BIS). The focus of their concerns has been on the declining credit standards for leveraged loans – particularly, the increase in issuance of “covenant-lite” (cov-lite) loans, inconsistent definitions of EBITDA in loan agreements, the growth in use of “EBITDA add backs”,4 and the accuracy of leveraged-loan ratings.5 We discuss some of those concerns in the Risks section. Table 1Risky Loans Are Mainly Held By Non-Bank Entities… Over the past several decades, the role of banks in providing capital to the leveraged loan market has shrunk and has been replaced by non-bank lenders such as mutual funds, hedge funds, insurance companies, and asset managers.6 Data by the Shared National Credit (SNC) program7 shows that non-bank entities in the US now hold close to 83% of all non-investment-grade term loans (Table 1). Moreover, estimates by the Bank of England8 (BoE) show that a quarter of the global stock of leveraged loans (which it estimates at close to $3.4 trillion) is held through collateralized loan obligations (CLOs)9 and approximately half is owned by non-bank institutions. In turn, those non-bank institutions hold a significant portion of CLOs – particularly the riskier tranches. This is not to say that banks are not exposed to leveraged loans. But banks predominantly invest in the highest, AAA, tranche of CLOs, and investment-grade loans.10 Riskier-rated loans are held by CLOs, mutual funds, and other lenders such as hedge funds (Chart 3).11 Chart 3…Particularly Those Rated Below BB Historical Risk And Return Chart 4Leveraged Loans' Relative Performance Moves With Interest Rates Since 1997, leveraged loans12 have returned an annualized 4.9%, 25 basis points higher than US Treasurys and approximately 100 and 200 basis points less than US investment-grade and high-yield bonds, respectively. They have underperformed US equities by an annualized 400 basis points over the same period. Declining rates over the past two decades are the most likely reason leveraged loans have underperformed their fixed-rate counterparts. The relative performance of leveraged loans to investment-grade bonds has closely tracked the trajectory of Treasury yields (Chart 4). While the case is not as clear for relative performance against high-yield bonds, the trend is similar. However, on a risk-adjusted return basis, due to reduced volatility, leveraged loans did outperform both equities and high-yield corporate bonds (Table 2). We nevertheless think that volatility is likely understated given the elevated kurtosis. The larger negative skew and excess kurtosis could indicate higher probabilities of large negative returns (Chart 5).   Table 2Historical Risk-Return Characteristics Chart 5Leveraged Loans' Returns Exhibit High Kurtosis And Negative Skewness Why Should Investors Consider Leveraged Loans? Chart 6Rising Rates Support Higher Return From Leveraged Loans... Our US bond strategists have showed that the odds of leveraged loans outperforming fixed-rate high-yield bonds increase when certain criteria are in place – particularly when valuations are tilted in loans’ favor, and Treasury yields are rising.13 Only the latter criterion is true currently. Year-to-date, leveraged loans have returned 2.2%, higher than the -3.2%, -3.4%, 1.6%, and -3.4% from US Treasurys, investment-grade bonds, high-yield bonds, and emerging markets sovereign debt, respectively (Chart 6). During the same period, Treasury yields rose by 65 basis points. We find that periods of rising Treasury yields are associated with increased flows into the asset class (Chart 7). More interestingly, leveraged loans outperform junk bonds when Treasury yields rise faster than what is discounted in the forwards curve over the following 12 months (Chart 8). Chart 7...As Well As Increased Fund Flows Chart 8Leveraged Loans Will Benefit If Interest Rates Rise By More Than What Is Discounted In The Forward Curve     This does not seem to be the case today, however, with the 5-year, 1-year forward about 40 basis points higher than the current 5-year Treasury yield. This is in line with our view that rates are unlikely to rise substantially over the next 6-to-12 months. Inflation, beyond a temporary spike over the next few months, should remain subdued, at least until employment is back to a level which would put upward pressure on wages. This is unlikely before 2023. It is also important to consider the potential trajectory of monetary policy as well as changes in long-term yields. The Fed, through its dot plot, is signaling no increase in the Fed Funds Rate before 2024, but the market is becoming worried about inflationary pressures and pricing in an earlier Fed hike. We believe it unlikely that the Fed will raise rates ahead of what the market expects, unless the labor market returns to “maximum employment” over the next 12 months. The yield on leveraged loans has been lower than on high-yield bonds for most of the period we have data for, except early 2020. Given leveraged loans’ senior position in a firm’s capital structure, it makes sense that their yields are lower. Additionally, the sector composition of the two markets plays a role: Leveraged loans are more exposed to the Technology and Communications sectors and have a limited allocation (averaging 1% over the past seven years) to the Energy sector, unlike high-yield, fixed-rate bonds (where the weight of Energy has averaged 13%) (Chart 9). This was mostly evident when the yield differential collapsed to below -3% during the 2014/2015 oil crash (Chart 10). Chart 9Leveraged Loans’ Sector Weightings Chart 10Loan Spreads Are Not Looking Attractive Chart 11Recent Investor Demand Pushed Up Leveraged Loan Prices The yield differential has, however, been trending upwards since then, and at current prices, upside may be limited. The recent surge in investor demand has pushed down yields on newly issued leveraged loans, moving the average bid price of leveraged loans above its pre-pandemic high (Chart 11). In the next section, we analyze how leveraged loans have behaved during recessions and other periods of financial market stress.   Financial Market Stress Performance In Crises Given the index’s short history, we are able to cover only the past three recessions (the dot-com bubble bust, the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), and the COVID-19 recession). We also look at the 2013 Taper Tantrum and the 2014/2015 oil price shock. In all cases, leveraged loans fell and subsequently recovered along with other fixed-income asset classes. The Taper Tantrum was the most favorable for leveraged loans: 10-year Treasury yields rose by 100 basis points over four months (Chart 12). Table 3 shows that periods of rising rates are a better environment for leveraged loans than those of declining rates. We also looked at a period of Fed tightening and easing cycles – although the timing of easing cycles overlaps with, recessions, dragging down the performance of leveraged loans. We also assess the impact of inflation on leveraged loans using the framework from our Special Report on inflation hedging,14 which decomposed inflation into four quartiles/regimes: Inflation levels below 2.3%, between 2.3% and 3.3%, between 3.3% and 4.9%, and above 4.9%. We add periods of decreasing inflation to our analysis. We note, however, that there was only one period where inflation was over the 4.9% threshold. Chart 12Leveraged Loans Fared Well In Periods Of Credit- And Sector-Specific Distress   Table 3Leveraged Loans’ Performance During Different Rate Cycles… Table 4…And Inflation Regimes During periods in the first and second inflation quartiles, leveraged loans, in absolute terms, had the highest average annualized returns, 8.1% and 10% respectively. This makes sense since in those regimes, policy rates are low and bond yields begin to rise given robust growth. Leveraged loans, however, underperformed fixed-rate bonds during those periods. Inflation above 3.3% represents an environment in which the economy begins to overheat and growth to falter. This regime saw leveraged loans outperform high-yield bonds by an annualized 1.5%. Periods of declining inflation also showed moderately positive annualized returns for leveraged loans (Table 4).   Risks Chart 13Corporate Health Has Worsened... The growth of the leveraged loans market reflects multiple trends but, most importantly, a broad increase in corporate leverage, driven by a decline in interest rates and increasing availability of cheap financing. The debt-to-asset ratio of nonfinancial businesses, a gauge of corporate leverage, is at a 20-year high (Chart 13, panel 1). This raises concerns about the overall health of the corporate sector – particularly firms’ ability to service their debt – since the median interest coverage ratio is near a level last seen during the GFC. This measure is even negative for companies within the 25th percentile, meaning companies in that bucket lack funds to maintain their interest payments (Chart 13, panel 2). Trends in the leveraged loan market paint a similar picture. The share of newly issued loans by the most highly levered firms – those with a debt-to-EBITDA ratio of 6x or higher – has reached new highs, hitting 37% of new loans in Q3 2020 (Chart 14). Chart 14…Even For Leveraged Lending Chart 15Cov-Lite Issuances Make Up Almost 80% Of New Issuances The providers of capital are partly to blame. Even with credit standards deteriorating, firms looking for capital were mostly able to find it. The share of cov-lite structures – loans that lack the protective covenants found in traditional loans – continues to grow and now comprises almost 80% of new issuance (Chart 15). Cov-lite loans typically do not have any maintenance covenants, requirements to maintain certain ratios such as leverage or interest-coverage ratios.15 Instead, they feature incurrence covenants which have to be met only if the issuer wants to take particular actions, such as taking on more debt.16 This loosening of credit terms is mostly a function of increased demand, particularly by CLO buyers and other non-bank institutional investors, in an environment of low yields. Some have even warned that vulnerabilities in the leveraged-loan market could cause disturbance to the overall financial system. Particularly, memories of the GFC and worries about the “originate-to-distribute” model – whereby banks originate loans but retain only a fraction on their balance sheets – have led some observers to suggest this could all lead to a risky expansion of credit, and trigger a new financial crisis. Chart 16Leveraged Loans Have Higher Average Credit Ratings… We do not share this skepticism. Banks’ exposure to leveraged loans is mainly via the highest tranches of CLOs. Banks’ liquidity requirements have increased since the GFC, and therefore contagion should be minimal in the event of problems in the loan market. A recent report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) did not find evidence that leveraged lending presented a significant threat to financial stability.17 Additionally, almost all leveraged loans are first lien, they have a senior secured position in the capital structure, higher average credit ratings than high-yield bonds (Chart 16), and lower default rates (Chart 17). Moreover, their five-year average recovery rate of 63% tops the 40% of senior unsecured bonds (Chart 18). Chart 17...Lower Default Rates... Chart 18...And Higher Recovery Rates Than High-Yield Bonds   Conclusion In a period of ultra-low interest rates and stretched valuations for risk assets, leveraged loans have emerged as an interesting asset class for investors. Due to lower volatility, leveraged loans have historically produced higher risk-adjusted returns than fixed-rate high-yield bonds. However, volatility is likely understated given elevated levels of kurtosis. Historically, rising Treasury yields and an attractive valuation starting-point provided a signal for leveraged loans’ outperformance. Only one of those two criteria are currently in place. In the next 6-to-12 months, we do not believe rates will rise substantially, making this asset class somewhat unattractive in the short term. The longer-run outlook for leveraged loans, however, is attractive. As inflation, and therefore rates, rise over the next two-to-three years, a moderate allocation to leveraged loans might be a useful hedge for investors.   Amr Hanafy Senior Analyst amrh@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see “LCD Loan Primer – Syndicated Loans: The Market and the Mechanics,” S&P Global Market Intelligence. 2 Please see “Leverage Lending FAQ & Fact Sheet,” SIFMA, February 2019. 3 Please see “Federal Reserve Financial Stability Report,” November 2020. 4 “EBITDA add backs” add back expenses and cost savings to earnings and could inflate the projected capacity of the borrowers to repay their loans. 5 Please see Todd Vermilyea, “Perspectives On Leveraged Lending,” The Loan Syndications and Trading Association 23rd Annual Conference, New York, October 24, 2018. 6 Please see “Global Financial Stability Report: Vulnerabilities in a Maturing Credit Cycle, Chapter 1,” IMF, April 2019. 7 The SNC Program is an interagency program designed to review and assess risk in the largest and most complex credits shared by multiple financial institutions. The SNC Program is governed by an interagency agreement among the three federal bank regulatory agencies - the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office Of the Comptroller Of The Currency (OCC). 8 Please see “Financial Stability Report,” Bank of England, August 2020. 9 CLOs are asset-backed securities issued by a special purpose vehicle which acquire a portfolio of leveraged loans. 10 Please see “Turns Out Leveraged Loans Aren’t a Systemic Risk After All,” Bank Policy Institute, February 8, 2020. 11 Please see Seung Jung Lee, Dan Li, Ralf R. Meisenzahl, and Martin J. Sicilian, “The U.S. Syndicated Term Loan Market: Who holds what and when?”, November 25, 2019. 12 For the purpose of this report, we use the S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index, which tracks the market-weighted performance of US dollar-denominated institutional leveraged loan portfolios. 13 Please see US Bond Strategy Report, “The Price Of Safety,” dated January 27, 2015. 14 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019. 15 Please see Eric Goodison And Margot Wagner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Llp, “Covenant-Lite Loans: Overview,” August 2019. 16 Please see Scott Essexx, Alexander Ott, Partners Group, “The Current State Of The Leveraged Loan Market: Are There Echoes Of The 2008 Subprime Market?”, March 2019. 17 Please see “Financial Stability: Agencies Have Not Found Leveraged Lending To Significantly Threaten Stability But Remain Cautious Amid Pandemic,” United States Government Accountability Office, December 2020.

Highlights Duration: The Fed will revise up its interest rate forecasts at this week’s meeting, but the new forecasts will remain dovish compared to current market pricing. This could pressure bond yields down in the near-term. However, any downside in yields could prove temporary given that economic growth continues to beat expectations. Corporates: The macro environment of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy will persist for some time yet. In this environment, bond portfolio managers should minimize exposure to interest rate risk and maximize exposure to credit risk. In particular, a strategy of favoring high-yield corporate bonds over investment grade corporate bonds makes a lot of sense. Inflation & TIPS: Core inflation will be relatively strong during the remainder of 2021, with 12-month core PCE likely ending the year close to the Fed’s 2% target. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Expect Some Pushback From The Fed The continuing bond market selloff will be the top item on the agenda at this week’s FOMC meeting. Meeting participants will debate whether the sharp rise in long-maturity bond yields represents a threat to the economic recovery and Chair Powell will no doubt be peppered with questions on the topic at his post-meeting press conference, as he was when he sat down with a Wall Street Journal reporter two weeks ago.1 But for our part, we’ll be focused more on the front-end of the yield curve this week. Specifically, we’ll be looking to see whether the Fed revises up its funds rate forecasts by enough to justify current market pricing or whether it uses its forecasts to push back against the bond bears. The market’s fed funds rate expectations have moved a lot since the Fed last published its own forecasts in December (Chart 1on page 1). In December, the market was priced for fed funds liftoff in December 2023 and then only one more 25 basis point rate hike through the end of 2024. Now, the market is looking for liftoff in January 2023, followed by two more rate hikes before the end of that year. Chart 1Market Priced For 3 Rate Hikes Before The End Of 2023 As for the Fed, at last December’s meeting only 5 out of 17 FOMC participants anticipated raising rates before the end of 2023. It’s logical to expect the Fed to increase its rate expectations this week as the economic outlook is much brighter than it was at the time of the December FOMC meeting. Back in December, we still didn’t know whether the Democrats would win control of the Senate, enabling passage of President Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. Doubts also remained about how quickly COVID vaccination would occur. Chart 2The Data Can't Disappoint The Fed will probably respond to these pro-growth developments by revising up its interest rate expectations, but we doubt that these revisions will bridge all of the gap with the market. Employment and inflation both remain far from where the Fed would like them to be, and the Fed will want to send the message that its policy stance remains highly accommodative. We could see the Fed’s median fed funds rate forecast shifting to call for one rate hike by the end of 2023, but not the three currently priced into the yield curve. In this scenario, the Fed’s pushback could prompt some near-term downside in bond yields. The question is how long the Fed’s messaging will impact the market in the current environment of surging economic growth. The Economic Surprise Index shows that the economic data can’t even manage to disappoint expectations, a development that usually coincides with rising yields (Chart 2). Bottom Line: The Fed will revise up its interest rate forecasts at this week’s meeting, but the new forecasts will remain dovish compared to current market pricing. This could pressure bond yields down in the near-term. However, any downside in yields could prove temporary given that economic growth continues to surpass expectations. We maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and we will continue to use our Checklist (see last week’s report)2 to determine an appropriate time to increase duration.   The Spread Buffer In Corporate Credit Treasury yields troughed last August, and since then returns have been hard to come by in the US bond market. This is not too surprising. Fixed income is hardly the ideal asset class for a reflationary economic environment. However, there are steps a bond portfolio manager can take to maximize profits in an economic environment that is characterized by (i) rapid economic growth, (ii) rising inflation expectations and (iii) monetary policy that remains accommodative. Specifically, bond investors should minimize their exposure to interest rate risk (i.e. duration) and maximize exposure to credit risk. That is, shy away from long duration assets with little-to-no credit spread and favor shorter duration assets where the credit spread makes up a large proportion of the yield. This sort of strategy has worked well since the August trough in Treasury yields. The Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index – an index with relatively long duration and a small credit spread – is down 4.08% since August 4th (Chart 3). Notably the worst returns have come from the highest rated credit tiers where the credit spread makes up a smaller proportion of the yield. Notice that Aaa-rated Corporates have lost 9% while Baa-rated bonds are only down 2.52% (Table 1). In contrast, total returns from the High-Yield Index – an index with lower duration where the credit spread makes up a much larger proportion of the yield – have held up nicely. The overall index has returned 6.65% since August 4th with the lowest credit tiers once again performing best. Chart 3Move Down In ##br##Quality Table 1Corporate Bond Returns Since The Aug. 4 2020 Trough In Treasury Yields Performance for both the Investment Grade and High-Yield indexes improves if we look at excess returns relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. That is, if we hedge out the interest rate risk and focus purely on spread movements. Though even here, we find that the lowest rated credits with the widest spreads deliver the best returns. If we assume that this reflationary economic environment persists for the next 12 months, can we expect the same low rate risk/high credit risk strategy to succeed? One way to investigate this question is to look at the 12-month breakeven yields and spreads for different segments of the corporate bond market (Table 2). The 12-month breakeven yield is the yield increase that the index can tolerate over the next 12 months before it delivers negative total returns. Similarly, the 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening that an index can tolerate over the next 12 months before it delivers negative excess returns (where excess returns are measured versus a duration-matched position in Treasury securities). Table 2Corporate Bond 12-Month Breakeven Yields And Spreads The overall Investment Grade Corporate Index, for example, has an average maturity of 12 years and a 12-month breakeven yield of 27 bps. This means that, if we assume that the investment grade corporate bond spread holds steady, then the odds of the index delivering negative total returns over the next 12 months are the same as the odds of a 12-year Treasury yield rising by more than 27 bps. An assumption of flat investment grade corporate bond spreads seems reasonable given that spreads are already historically tight (Chart 4). Moving down in quality within investment grade helps a bit, the Baa credit tier has a 12-month breakeven yield of 30 bps compared to a 12-month breakeven yield of 21 bps for the Aa credit tier. A similar benefit is observed if we look at the 12-month breakeven spread: 14 bps for Baa and only 6 bps for Aa. However, the real improvement comes when we move out of investment grade entirely and into high-yield. To calculate fair breakeven yields and spreads for high-yield bonds we need to incorporate default loss expectations. The current macro environment of strong growth and accommodative monetary policy should lead to relatively low default losses. That being the case, we assume a base case of a 2.5% default rate and 40% recovery rate for the next 12 months. Using this assumption, we calculate a 12-month breakeven yield of 75 bps for the High-Yield Index and a 12-month breakeven spread of 46 bps. This represents a significant extra buffer compared to what is offered by even the lowest investment grade credit tier. Not only that, but the 75 bps 12-month breakeven yield from the High-Yield Index looks even better when we consider that high-yield spreads are not as overvalued relative to history as investment grade spreads, and have more room to tighten as the economic recovery progresses (Chart 5). Chart 4Investment Grade Valuation Chart 5High-Yield Valuation Table 2 also presents two other default loss scenarios, and it shows that we need fairly pessimistic default loss expectations to make high-yield breakeven yields and spreads comparable to what is offered by investment grade bonds. Even if we assume a 4.5% default rate and 30% recovery rate for the next 12 months, we still get a 32 bps breakeven yield from the High-Yield Index, comparable to what we get from the Baa credit tier. Bottom Line: The macro environment of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy will persist for some time yet. In this environment, bond portfolio managers should minimize exposure to interest rate risk and maximize exposure to credit risk. In particular, a strategy of favoring high-yield corporate bonds over investment grade corporate bonds makes a lot of sense.                           Inflation & The Inverted TIPS Curve Chart 6Inflation Will Peak In April February’s Consumer Price Index was released last week, and it showed that core CPI managed only a 0.1% increase on the month. This caught some off guard given that “rising inflation” has become a popular market narrative during the past few months. Our view is that core inflation will rise significantly between now and the end of the year, and that 12-month core PCE inflation will end the year close to the Fed’s 2% target. We arrive at this view for three reasons. First, base effects will lead to a large jump in 12-month inflation measures in March and April. Chart 6 illustrates the paths for both 12-month core PCE and core CPI assuming modest 0.15% monthly gains between now and the end of the year. Because the severely negative inflation prints from last March and April are about to fall out of the rolling 12-month sample, 12-month core inflation is on the cusp of rising to levels considerably above the Fed’s target. This means that after 12-month inflation peaks in April, the question will be how much it declines during the remainder of the year. One reason why we think it might not fall that dramatically is that bottlenecks are already emerging in both the goods and services sectors, and prices will come under upward pressure as the economy re-opens and consumers are encouraged to deploy some of the excess savings they’ve built up during the pandemic. Producer prices are currently surging, as are survey responses about price pressures from the NFIB Small Business Survey and the ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing Surveys (Chart 7). Finally, shelter is the largest component of core inflation (accounting for almost 40% of core CPI). It would be difficult for overall core inflation to rise significantly without at least some participation from shelter. With that in mind, we now see evidence that shelter inflation will soon put in a trough (Chart 8). Chart 7Price Pressures Are Building Chart 8Shelter Inflation About To Bottom The permanent unemployment rate and Apartment Market Tightness Index are both tightly correlated with shelter inflation. The permanent unemployment rate has stopped climbing and will move lower during the next few months as increased vaccination rates allow for more of the economy to re-open (Chart 8, panel 2). The Apartment Market Tightness Index is also well off its lows, and it will soon jump above the 50 line, joining the Sales Volume Index (Chart 8, panel 3). Consumers are also increasingly seeing signs of rental inflation. A question from the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations showed a very sharp increase in expected rents in February (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 9Stay Long TIPS As for TIPS strategy, we are hesitant to back away from our overweight TIPS/underweight nominal Treasuries position with inflation on the cusp of a such a significant move higher, especially with the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate still below where the Fed would like it to be (Chart 9). We are also not yet willing to exit the inflation curve flattening and real yield curve steepening positions that we have been recommending since last April, even though the 5/10 TIPS breakeven inflation slope has become inverted (Chart 9, bottom panel).3  With the Fed targeting an overshoot of its 2% inflation target, an inverted inflation curve is more natural than a positively sloped one. This is because the Fed will be trying to hit its inflation target from above, rather than from below. Further, the short-end of the inflation curve is more sensitive to the actual inflation data than the long-end. This means that the curve could flatten even more as inflation rises in the coming months. Bottom Line: Core inflation will be relatively strong during the remainder of 2021, with 12-month core PCE likely ending the year close to the Fed’s 2% target. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on the implications of what Powell said in this interview please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Panic From Powell”, dated March 9, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Panic From Powell”, dated March 9, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (today at 10:00 AM EST, 3:00 PM GMT, 4:00 PM CET, 11:00 PM HKT). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist  

Highlights Duration: Long-maturity Treasury yields are closing in on our intermediate-term targets. On balance, cyclical and valuation indicators continue to support an outlook for higher yields, but a few are sending warning signs that the bearish bond move is due for a correction. We maintain our recommended below-benchmark 6-12 month duration stance for now, but are keeping a close eye on the indicators shown in this report. Ba Versus Baa Corporates: From a risk-adjusted perspective, the Ba credit tier still looks like the sweet spot for positioning within corporate bonds. Fallen Angels have performed exceptionally, but no longer look cheap compared to the Baa and Ba corporate indexes. Labor Market: If the current pace of monthly employment growth is maintained, it will be a very long time before the economy reaches full employment. Vaccine effectiveness and distribution rate are the two most important factors that will determine employment growth going forward. We are optimistic that we will see a 4.5% unemployment rate sometime in 2022. Feature Chart 1Uptrend Intact Bond yields moved higher last week, maintaining their post-August uptrend despite a brief lull in the second half of January (Chart 1). The 30-year yield even touched 1.97%, its highest level since last February. Given the sharp up-move, the first section of this week’s report considers whether bond yields look stretched. More broadly, we discuss several factors that will help us decide when to increase portfolio duration. How Much Higher Can Yields Rise? We have maintained a recommended below-benchmark duration stance since October and have been targeting a range of 2% to 2.25% for the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield.1 That target range is based on median estimates of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s surveys of market participants and primary dealers (Chart 2). The rationale is that in an environment of global economic recovery where the Fed is expected to eventually lift the funds rate back to equilibrium, long-dated forward yields should reflect expectations of that long-run equilibrium. At present, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is 1.97% meaning that there is between 3 bps and 28 bps of upside before our target is met. Chart 2Almost At Target A 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield between 2% and 2.25% would not automatically trigger an increase in our recommended portfolio duration, but it would mean that further increases in yields would need to be justified by upward revisions to survey estimates of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate. In a similar vein, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen considerably in recent months, but at 2.15%, it remains below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that the Fed would consider “well anchored” (Chart 2, bottom panel). In other words, there is still some running room for reflationary economic outcomes to be priced into bond yields. Cyclical Growth Indicators Treasury yields may be encroaching on the lower bounds of our target ranges, but cyclical economic indicators suggest further increases ahead. The CRB Raw Industrials / Gold ratio remains in a solid uptrend, and encouragingly, it is being driven by a surging CRB index and not just a falling gold price (Chart 3). Separately, the outperformance of cyclical equity sectors over defensives has moderated in recent weeks, but not yet by enough to warrant reversing our duration call (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Cyclical Bond Indicators Value Indicators Chart 4Bond Valuation Indicators While cyclical indicators point to further bond weakness ahead, a couple valuation measures show yields starting to look stretched. Two survey-derived estimates of the 10-year zero-coupon term premium have moved up sharply. The estimate derived from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants has jumped into positive territory and the estimate derived from the Survey of Primary Dealers is close behind (Chart 4). These surveys ask respondents to estimate what they think the fed funds rate will average over the next ten years. By comparing the median survey response to the current spot 10-year Treasury yield we get a measure of how much term premium the median investor expects to earn. These term premium estimates have typically been negative during the past few years, though they did rise to about +50 bps before Treasury yields peaked in 2018. In other words, a positive term premium estimate, on its own, is no reason to extend duration. All it tells us is that if the median investor is correct about the future path of the fed funds rate, then there is more money to be made at the long-end of the curve than in cash. This doesn’t rule out investors revising their funds rate expectations higher, or the term premium becoming even more stretched. Another related bond valuation indicator is the difference between the market’s expected path for the fed funds rate and the path projected by the FOMC (Chart 4, bottom panel). Here we see that, for the first time since 2014, the market is priced for a faster pace of tightening over the next two years than the median FOMC participant anticipates. Again, this is not a decisive signal to buy bonds. The FOMC could revise its funds rate projections higher when it meets next month. However, the longer that market pricing remains more hawkish than the Fed, the stronger the case to increase duration becomes. The Dollar Chart 5Dollar Still Supports Higher Yields Finally, we should note that the trade-weighted dollar appreciated last week as bond yields rose (Chart 5). A stronger dollar certainly supports the case for extending duration, the only question is whether the dollar has strengthened enough to dent US economic growth and pull US yields back down. Our sense is that we haven’t reached that breaking point yet, but we could if US real yields continue to rise relative to real yields in the rest of the world (Chart 5, panels 2 & 3). We think of the relationship between US bond yields and the dollar as a feedback loop. A weaker dollar supports economic reflation, which eventually sends yields higher. However, once higher US yields de-couple too far from yields in the rest of the world, the dollar appreciates. A stronger dollar impairs the economic outlook and sends US yields back down, the dollar then depreciates and the cycle repeats. At present, we appear to be in the stage of the feedback loop where US yields are rising relative to the rest of the world, putting upward pressure on the dollar. However, we don’t think the dollar is yet strong enough to prevent US yields from climbing. Dollar bullish sentiment, for example, remains below 50% suggesting that most investors remain dollar bears. A sub-50 reading on this index also tends to coincide with rising US Treasury yields (Chart 5, bottom panel). A move above 50 in the dollar sentiment index would be another signal that the bond bear market is becoming stretched. Bottom Line: Long-maturity Treasury yields are closing-in on our intermediate-term targets. On balance, cyclical and valuation indicators continue to support an outlook for higher yields, but a few are sending warning signs that the bearish bond move is due for a correction. We maintain our recommended below-benchmark 6-12 month duration stance for now, but are keeping a close eye on the indicators shown in this report. Comparing Baa- And Ba-Rated Corporate Bonds Chart 6The Ba Index OAS Is Unusually High We have previously written that the macro environment is extremely positive for credit risk and we recommend moving down in quality within corporate bonds. We have also pointed out that the incremental spread pick-up earned from moving out of Baa-rated bonds and into Ba-rated bonds is elevated compared to typical historical levels. As such, the Ba-rated credit tier looks like the sweet spot for corporate bond allocation from a risk/reward perspective.2 In this week’s report we delve a little deeper into the relative valuation between Baa- and Ba-rated bonds. First, we note the difference between the average option-adjusted spread (OAS) of the Ba index and the average OAS of the Baa index. The Ba index OAS is 126 bps above the Baa index OAS, a level that looks high compared to recent years (Chart 6). One problem with this simple comparison of index OAS is that the average duration of the Ba index is much lower than the average duration of the Baa index (Chart 6, bottom panel). However, after doing our best to match the duration between the two indexes, we still find that Ba offers an attractive yield advantage, particularly compared to levels seen in 2017 and 2018 (Chart 6, panel 2). Going back to our simple OAS differential, we conducted a small study looking at calendar year excess returns between 1989 and 2020. Our results show that the differential between the Default-Adjusted Ba OAS and the Baa OAS does a good job predicting relative excess returns between the two sectors (Table 1).3 The Default-Adjusted Ba OAS is the Ba index OAS at the beginning of the calendar year minus realized Ba default losses that occurred during the year in question. We also use the Baa index OAS from the beginning of the year, but don’t make any adjustments for Baa default losses. Table 1Annual Excess Return Differential & Relative Spreads: Ba Corporates Over Baa Corporates Our results show that Ba excess returns outpaced Baa excess returns in every calendar year for which the Adjusted Ba/Baa OAS differential exceeds 100 bps. The raw Ba/Baa OAS differential is currently 126 bps. This means that we should be very confident that Ba-rated bonds will outperform Baa-rated bonds in 2021, as long as Ba default losses come in below 0.26%. This seems likely. For context, Ba default losses came in at 0.09% in 2020, despite the 12-month default rate spiking to almost 9%. Fallen Angels Another interesting issue to consider when looking at the intersection between the Baa and Ba credit tiers is the presence of fallen angels – bonds that were initially rated investment grade but have been downgraded to junk. The 2020 default cycle coincided with a huge spike in ratings downgrades and the number of outstanding fallen angels jumped dramatically (Chart 7). Not only that, but fallen angels also performed exceptionally well in 2020. Fallen angels outperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 800 bps in 2020 compared to 431 bps for the Ba-rated index, -10 bps for the Baa-rated index and -13 bps for the B-rated index (Chart 7, bottom panel). All that outperformance has compressed fallen angel valuations a lot. The incremental spread pick-up in fallen angels over duration-matched Baa-rated bonds is 201 bps, about one standard deviation below its post-2010 average (Chart 8). Fallen angels look even worse compared to the Ba index, offering only a 30 bps spread advantage (Chart 8, panel 2). Chart 7Fallen Angels Dominated In 2020 Chart 8Fallen Angels No Longer Look Cheap Bottom Line: From a risk-adjusted perspective, the Ba credit tier still looks like the sweet spot for positioning within corporate bonds. Fallen Angels have performed exceptionally, but no longer look cheap compared to the Baa and Ba corporate indexes.   Labor Market Update Chart 9Employment Growth Has Slowed Last week’s January employment report was a disappointment with nonfarm payrolls growing only 49k after having contracted by 227k in December (Chart 9).   Two weeks ago, we calculated the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required for the unemployment rate to reach 4.5% by certain future dates.4 In our view, an unemployment rate of 4.5% would meet the Fed’s definition of maximum employment, making it an important pre-condition for monetary tightening. Revising our calculations to incorporate January’s report, a 4.5% unemployment rate by the end of 2021 still looks like a long shot. Nonfarm payroll growth would have to average between +328k and +705k per month to meet that target, depending on the path of the participation rate (Table 2). That said, we still view a 4.5% unemployment rate by the end of 2022 as achievable. Table 2Average Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment Rate To Reach 4.5% ##br##By The Given Date Yes, even that will require average monthly payroll growth of between +210k and +411k, but we are likely to see a re-opening of certain shuttered sectors – Leisure & Hospitality, for example – during that timeframe. When it occurs, this re-opening will lead to a surge in employment growth that will push average monthly payroll growth dramatically higher. Notice that almost 40% of the 9.9 million drop in overall employment since February 2020 has come from the Leisure & Hospitality sector (Chart 10). Chart 10Waiting For The Post-COVID Snapback Bottom Line: If the current pace of monthly employment growth is maintained, it will be a very long time before the economy reaches full employment. Vaccine effectiveness and distribution rate are the two most important factors that will determine employment growth going forward. We are optimistic that we will see a 4.5% unemployment rate sometime in 2022.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep”, dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Excess returns are calculated relative to duration-matched Treasury securities in all cases. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification