Special Report
Highlights IG Energy: Investors should overweight Energy bonds within an overweight allocation to investment grade corporate bonds overall. Within IG Energy, the Independent sub-sector should perform best, and we recommend avoiding the higher-rated Integrated space. HY Energy: Investors should overweight high-yield Energy relative to the overall junk index. In particular, investors should focus their exposure on the Independent sub-sector, while avoiding the distressed Oil Field Services space. Feature This week we present part 2 of our two-part Special Report on Energy bonds. Last week’s report showed how to develop a model for Energy bond excess returns (both investment grade and high-yield) based on overall corporate bond index spreads and the oil price.1 This week, we delve deeper into the characteristics of both the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes to better understand how both are likely to trade in the coming months. Chart 1High-Yield Energy Bond Returns Have Bottomed Chart 2Energy Index Sub-Sector Composition* In this week’s deep dive, we don’t limit ourselves to an examination of the overall Energy index. We also consider the outlooks for its five main sub-sectors: Integrated: Major oil firms that are present along the entire supply chain – from exploration and production all the way down to refined products for consumers. Independent: Exploration & production firms. Oil Field Services: Support services for the Independent sector – notably drilling. Midstream: Transportation (pipelines), storage and marketing of crude oil. Refining Chart 2 shows the share of each sub-sector in both the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes. Midstream (46%) and Integrated (31%) are the largest sub-sectors in the investment grade index. Independent (48%) and Midstream (36%) are the heavyweights in the high-yield space. Investment Grade Energy Risk Profile Overall, investment grade Energy bonds are highly cyclical. That is, they tend to outperform the corporate benchmark during periods of spread tightening and underperform during periods of spread widening. This cyclical behavior is due to Energy’s lower credit rating compared to the Bloomberg Barclays Corporate index. Sixty five percent of Energy’s market cap carries a Baa rating compared to 59% for the overall index (Chart 3). The sector’s cyclical nature is confirmed by its duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio,2 which is well above 1.0 (Chart 4A). Interestingly, Energy has only been a highly cyclical sector since the 2014-2016 oil price crash. Prior to that, Energy mostly tracked the corporate index’s performance and only slightly underperformed the benchmark during the 2008/09 financial crisis. More recently, Energy underperformed the corporate index dramatically when spreads widened in March, but has outperformed by 936 bps since spreads peaked on March 23 (Chart 4A, panel 3). Energy has only been a highly cyclical sector since the 2014- 2016 oil price crash. Turning to the sub-sectors, the Integrated sub-sector immediately stands out as the only one with a higher average credit rating than the corporate benchmark. Ninety-two percent of Integrated issuers are rated A or Aa (Chart 3). The presence of the global oil majors (Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP) is what gives the sub-sector its higher average credit quality and makes it the only defensive Energy sub-sector. Notice that Integrated even proved resilient during the 2014-16 Energy bond turmoil (Chart 4B). The remaining four sub-sectors (Independent, Oil Field Services, Midstream and Refining) all have lower average credit ratings than the corporate index (Chart 3) and all trade cyclically relative to the benchmark with Independent (Chart 4C) and Oil Field Services (Chart 4D) being more cyclical than Midstream (Chart 4E) and Refining (Chart 4F). Interestingly, Independent trades more cyclically than Midstream and Refining despite having a greater concentration of high-rated issuers. This is likely due the fact that Independent (aka Exploration & Production) firms are more dependent on the level of oil prices, and typically require a certain minimum oil price to support capital spending and growth. Meanwhile, crude oil is an input for Refining firms and lower oil prices can boost margins, helping offset some of the negative impact from growth downturns. Chart 3Investment Grade Credit Rating Distributions* Chart 4AIG Energy Risk Profile Chart 4BIG Integrated Risk Profile Chart 4CIG Independent Risk Profile Chart 4DIG Oil Field Services Risk Profile Chart 4EIG Midstream Risk Profile Chart 4FIG Refining Risk Profile Valuation In terms of value, we find that the Energy sector offers a spread advantage relative to the corporate index and its equivalently-rated (Baa) benchmark (Table 1). This advantage holds up after we control for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread. The four cyclical sub-sectors (Independent, Oil Field Services, Midstream and Refining) all also look cheap, whether or not we control for duration differences. Integrated, the sole defensive sub-sector, is roughly fairly valued compared to the equivalently-rated (Aa) benchmark. Table 1IG Energy Valuation Balance Sheet Health The par value of outstanding investment grade Energy debt jumped sharply as oil prices plunged in 2014. But the sector has barely issued any debt since the 2014-16 collapse. Instead, Energy firms have relied on capital spending reductions, asset sales, equity issuance and dividend cuts to raise cash. This shift toward austerity explains why Energy’s weight in the index fell from 11% in 2015 to 8% today (Chart 5A). The median Energy firm’s net debt-to-EBITDA consequently improved between 2017 and 2019, but has once again started to rise as earnings have struggled in recent quarters (Chart 5A, bottom panel). At the issuer level, 15 out of the investment grade index’s 56 Energy issuers currently have a negative ratings outlook from Moody’s (Appendix A). Of the 23 Energy sector ratings that Moody’s has reviewed in 2020, 12 have been affirmed with a stable outlook and 11 were assigned negative outlooks. At the sub-sector level, Integrated debt growth lagged that of the corporate index during the last recovery (Chart 5B). Though the sub-sector has an average credit rating of Aa, most issuers carry negative ratings outlooks, including four of the five global oil majors (Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil and BP). Interestingly, Independent trades more cyclically than Midstream and Refining, despite having a greater concentration of high-rated issuers. The outstanding par value of investment grade Independent debt had been stagnant since 2015, it then plunged this year as three sizeable issuers were downgraded from investment grade to high-yield (Chart 5C). EQT Corp, Occidental Petroleum and Apache Corp were all downgraded during the past few months. They currently account for 21% of the high-yield Energy index’s market cap. Encouragingly, only two of the 16 remaining investment grade Independent issuers currently have negative ratings outlooks. The situation is less favorable for Oil Field Services. This sub-sector’s outstanding debt has remained low since the 2014-16 collapse (Chart 5D), but four of the six investment grade Oil Field Services issuers have negative ratings outlooks. Midstream (Chart 5E) and Refining (Chart 5F) both continued to grow their outstanding debt levels throughout the entirety of the last recovery, including during the 2014-16 period. At present, only three of the 23 investment grade Midstream issuers have negative ratings outlooks, while two of the four Refining issuers have negative outlooks. Chart 5AIG Energy Debt Growth Chart 5BIG Integrated Debt Growth Chart 5CIG Independent Debt Growth Chart 5DIG Oil Field Services Debt Growth Chart 5EIG Midstream Debt Growth Chart 5FIG Refining Debt Growth Investment Conclusions As per last week’s report, we recommend that investors overweight Energy bonds within their investment grade corporate bond allocations. This recommendation stems from our view that corporate bond spreads will tighten during the next 12 months and that the oil price will rise. As such, we want to favor cyclical investment grade bond sectors that will outperform during periods of spread tightening. With that in mind, we would advise investors to focus their investment grade Energy allocations on the most cyclical sub-sector: Independent. Not only does the Independent sub-sector have the highest DTS ratio of the five sub-sectors, but its weakest credits have already been purged from the index and further downgrades are less likely. Oil Field Services offer less spread pick-up than Independent, and also have a higher proportion of issuers with negative ratings outlooks. By similar logic, we would avoid the Integrated sub-sector. This sub-sector trades defensively relative to the corporate benchmark and a high proportion of its issuers have negative ratings outlooks. High-Yield Energy Bonds Risk Profile On average, the High-Yield Energy index and the overall High-Yield corporate index have very similar credit ratings. However, the Energy sector has a more barbelled credit rating distribution with a greater proportion of Ba-rated securities (64% versus 55%) and a greater proportion of Ca-C rated issuers (8% versus 1%) (Chart 6). Chart 6High-Yield Credit Rating Distributions* Chart 7AHY Energy Risk Profile It is likely some combination of the larger presence of very low-rated credits and increased oil price volatility that has caused the sector to trade cyclically versus the junk benchmark since 2014 (Chart 7A). Notice that Energy outperformed the junk index during the 2008 sell off, but has since turned cyclical, underperforming in both the 2015/16 and 2020 risk-off episodes. At the sub-sector level, there is currently only one high-yield rated Integrated issuer (Cenovus Energy Inc., Ba-rated, negative outlook). Based on their DTS ratios, the Independent and Oil Field Services sub-sectors are the most cyclical (Charts 7B & 7C). This is because the lower-rated (Caa & below) issuers are concentrated in the these spaces. This is particularly true for Oil Field Services where 41% of the sub-sector’s market cap is rated Caa or below. The Midstream sub-sector also trades cyclically relative to the junk benchmark, but with somewhat less volatility than Independent and Oil Field Services, as evidenced by its DTS ratio of 1.2 (Chart 7D). Refining has traded like a cyclical sector so far this year, but that may not continue now that its DTS ratio has fallen close to 1.0 (Chart 7E). Chart 7BHY Independent Risk Profile Chart 7CHY Oil Field Services Risk Profile Chart 7DHY Midstream Risk Profile Chart 7EHY Refining Risk Profile Valuation The Energy sector offers a significant spread advantage over the High-Yield index and also relative to other Ba-rated issuers (Table 2). Adjusting for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread makes Energy look even more attractive. Energy spreads need to widen by 189 bps during the next 12 months to underperform duration-matched Treasuries. This compares to 93 bps for other Ba-rated issuers and 150 bps for the overall junk index. Table 2HY Energy Valuation Four of the five Energy sub-sectors (Integrated being the exception) also offer attractive value relative to the overall index and their equivalently-rated benchmarks. This remains true after adjusting for duration differences. Balance Sheet Health The high-yield Energy sector has added much more debt than the overall junk index since 2010 (Chart 8A). But of greater concern is that Moody’s has already changed its ratings outlook from stable to negative for 58 Energy issuers since the start of the year. Meanwhile, only 17 high-yield Energy issuers have seen their ratings outlooks confirmed as stable in 2020. Nevertheless, we take some comfort knowing that the Energy sector should benefit from having a large number of issuers able to take advantage of the Federal Reserve’s Main Street Lending facilities. As a reminder, to be eligible for the Main Street facilities issuers must have fewer than 15000 employees or less than $5 billion in 2019 revenue. They must also be able to keep their Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0, including any new debt added through the Main Street programs. The Energy sector offers a significant spread advantage over the High-Yield index and also relative to other Barated issuers. Of the 61 US high-yield Energy issuers with available data (we exclude 23 foreign issuers that won’t have access to US programs), we estimate that at least 48 are eligible to receive support from the Main Street facilities (Appendix B). This not only includes 15 out of 20 B-rated issuers, but also 12 out of 15 Caa-rated issuers and 4 out of 7 issuers rated below Caa. This broad access is the result of deleveraging that has occurred since the 2014-16 bust (Chart 8A, bottom panel) and it should go a long way toward limiting defaults in the Energy space. The Independent sub-sector’s weight in the index jumped sharply this year, the result of adding three sizeable fallen angels (Chart 8B). Importantly, 24 out of the 28 US Independent issuers appear eligible for Fed support. In contrast, the Oil Field Services sector is in distress. Its weight in the index has been declining for more than a year (Chart 8C), and a large proportion of its issuers are concentrated in lower credit tiers. However, we estimate that out of 19 issuers with available data, 13 are eligible for the Fed’s Main Street Lending facilities. Both Midstream and Refining have high concentrations of Ba-rated issuers and neither has aggressively grown its presence in the index during the past decade (Charts 8D & 8E), though Midstream’s index weight did jump this year. The high credit quality of both indexes means that most issuers will have access to the Main Street facilities, though three of the five Refining issuers are not US based. Chart 8AHY Energy Debt Growth Chart 8BHY Independent Debt GrowthChart 8CHY Oil Field Services Debt Growth Chart 8DHY Midstream Debt Growth Chart 8EHY Refining Debt Growth Investment Conclusions The conclusion from the model we presented in last week’s report was that high-yield Energy should outperform the junk index during the next 12 months, assuming that overall junk spreads tighten and the oil price rises. However, we remain concerned that, despite the nascent economic recovery, some low-rated Energy names will go bust during the next few months, weighing on index returns. The pattern from the 2014-16 default cycle argues that our concerns may be overblown. In February 2016, high-yield Energy started to outperform the overall junk index slightly after the trough in oil prices and eleven months before the peak in the 12-month trailing default rate (Chart 1 on page 1). If oil prices are indeed already past their cyclical trough, then it may already be a good time to bottom-fish in the high-yield Energy space. The fact that the bulk of high-yield Energy issuers are eligible for support through the Main Street lending facilities tips the scales, and we recommend that investors overweight high-yield Energy relative to the overall junk index. In particular, we think investors should focus on the Independent sub-sector where value is very attractive and most issuers can tap the Fed for help if needed. We would, however, avoid the Oil Field Services sector where the bulk of Energy defaults are likely to come from. Midstream and Refining should perform well, but are less cyclical and less attractively valued than the Independent sub-sector. Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. Appendix A Investment Grade Energy Issuers Appendix B High-Yield Energy Issuers
