United States

Highlights China and India periodically fight each other on their fuzzy Himalayan border with zero market consequences. A major conflict is possible in the current environment – but it would present a buying opportunity. Chinese escalation with India would not have a negative impact on global trade and economy, unlike escalation with the US or its East Asian allies. If China gets into a major conflict with India, it is less likely to stage major military actions in the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait. It would reduce much more significant geopolitical risks. Go strategically long Indian pharmaceuticals. Feature India and China have engaged in their first deadly military clash since 1967. An Indian colonel and at least 20 troops died in fighting on June 15 in the Galwan Valley, Ladakh, where territorial disputes have heated up over the past month.At least 50 Chinese troops are estimated dead.1 Chart 1Regional Equities May Not Shrug Off War In Himalayas ... At First It was a minor incident. No shots were fired. Combatants used stones and knives and threw each other off cliffs. However, the occasion of the battle was a negotiation to de-escalate tensions, and talks have gone on since June 3. So that bodes ill. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has not responded but China’s foreign ministry is making conciliatory remarks. Normally India-China border clashes occur during the summer, when weather permits, and do not last long and do not impact the rest of the world, either politically or financially. However, the structural and cyclical drivers of the conflict suggest it could escalate over the summer. A major escalation between nuclear powers is unlikely but could conceivably cause volatility in global financial markets. Global equity investors are focused on other things (COVID-19, global stimulus), but recent volatility suggests that Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani bourses could be vulnerable to any major military escalation (Chart 1). However, a Himalayan-inspired selloff would be short-lived and would present a buying opportunity. India-China tensions are far less relevant to global financial markets than China’s disputes with the United States in East Asia. If the US uses India as a pretext for tougher actions on China, then that is a different story. But it is unlikely for reasons explained below. Our base case strategic assessment of India remains the same: Chinese expansionism will pressure India to speed up economic development to gain greater influence in South Asia. India will also pursue better trade and defense relations with the United States and its allies in East Asia and the Pacific. We are tactically cautious on global equities, but strategically we expect equities to beat bonds and cyclicals to beat defensives. Selloffs stemming from Himalayan conflict will create buying opportunities for emerging market equities, especially India. The Drivers Of The Ladakh Skirmish India and China have a 2,170-mile border in the Himalayan mountains that is disputed in India’s northwest (Aksai Chin) and northeast (Sikkim; Arunachal Pradesh). These border disputes have simmered for decades and occasionally flare into violent incidents, usually meaningless. An India-China border war could occur, but is unlikely. Today’s clashes are mostly taking place in eastern Ladakh, as with disputes in 2013-14. Minor incidents have also occurred in India’s northeast (Naku La, Sikkim). These may be unrelated, but they may also suggest a broad India-China border conflict is in the works (Map 1). Map 1India And China Often Fight Over Undefined Himalayan Border When Ice Melts There is always a local spark for clashes along the Line of Actual Control. These tend to be triggered by infrastructure construction or military patrols that cross the countries’ various border claims. Typically China triggers the incident as it is always pouring more money and concrete into new structures to solidify its territorial claims, whereas India’s resources are more limited. However, in recent years India has grown more capable. Both sides may also be surging infrastructure spending amid the recession (Chart 2). Chart 2China No Longer Alone In Nation-Building In Himalayas Chart 3China's Slower Growth Jeopardizes Communist Party Legitimacy In the current dispute both sides claim the other broke the peace. Indian builders supposedly violated China’s space while working on the Darbuk-Shayok-DBO road which connects to an airfield near Galwan Valley, the site of the clash. But the Indian side argues that Chinese military forces have ventured several miles from their usual outposts and amassed major forces on their side suggesting they are preparing for a bigger effort to expand their control of territory. 2 We may never know who “started” it. There is no clear border and even the Line of Actual Control is hard to define.3 Investors should not confuse the proximate cause of this conflict for the underlying cause. There are structural and cyclical factors at work on both sides: 1. China’s declining domestic stability and rising international assertiveness. The crises of 2008, 2015, 2018-19, and 2020 have caused a hard break in China’s economic model. Slower trend growth jeopardizes the Communist Party’s long-term monopoly on power (Chart 3). The Xi Jinping administration has responded to each crisis by tightening the party’s grip and reasserting central Beijing control. This is true at home, in peripheral territories like Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and abroad, as in the South China Sea and the Belt and Road Initiative. Territorial disputes have flared up across China’s borders. India is no exception, with incidents in 2013, 2014, 2017, and now 2020 marking the change (Table 1). Table 1China’s Territorial Assertiveness Triggers Clashes With India The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor strengthens the alliance between these two countries and deepens India’s insecurities. India perceives China’s Belt and Road Initiative as a threat of economic and eventually military encirclement. In 2017, the Doklam dispute between China, Bhutan, and India – which lasted over two months – served to distract the Chinese populace from a major increase in US pressure on China’s periphery. That was President Trump’s “fire and fury” campaign to intimidate North Korea into entering nuclear negotiations (Chart 4). In 2020, China faces its first recessionary environment since the mid-1970s as well as rocky relations with the United States over trade, technology, Hong Kong, North Korea again, and possibly even the Taiwan Strait. It is a convenient time to turn the public’s attention to the Himalayas. Chart 4China's Last Dispute With India Occurred During US-North Korea Tensions 2. India’s emerging national consensus and international coming-of-age. India’s rise as a global power has accelerated since the Great Recession, especially after oil prices fell in 2014. Prime Minister Modi has won two smashing general elections with single-party majorities, in 2014 and 2019. His movement also maintains the upper hand in state legislatures, which is important given that India’s weak federal government cannot simply force structural reforms onto the country (Map 2). Modi’s electoral success reflects a deeper national consensus on the need for stronger central leadership, faster economic development, deeper international trade and investment ties, and pro-efficiency reforms such as the creation of a single market. The policy retreat from globalization benefits insular and service-oriented economies like India at the expense of mercantilist trading powers such as China. America’s pivot to Asia and “Indo-Pacific” strategy create a chance for India to attract investment as multinational corporations diversify away from China (Chart 5). Map 2Modi’s Political Capital At State-Level Chart 5India Attracts Investment As Supply Chains Diversify From China Chart 6US And India Fiscal Stimulus Enable Supply Chain Shift Out Of China In August 2019, after Modi’s big election victory, he launched an ambitious agenda of state-building. He converted the autonomous region of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories under New Delhi: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. This change of status quo angered China and Pakistan, which felt their own territory threatened. Chinese territorial pressure could be retribution for these administrative reforms. China and Pakistan will also want to undermine Modi’s party in upcoming elections for the state assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. China’s territorial encroachments reflect its desire to gain control of the entire Aksai Chin plateau. India does not want China to gain such a strategic advantage at the head of the Indus River and valley. The global pandemic and recession reinforced these structural and cyclical trends by pushing both India and China to use nationalist devices to divert their populations from domestic ills. The use of fiscal stimulus across the world enables leaders to pursue risky strategic policies (Chart 6). There is also a tactical issue: India took over the chairmanship of the World Health Assembly in May, while the US is lobbying on behalf of Taiwan’s long desire to be represented in the World Health Organization in the wake of COVID-19. China is resisting this call and could be using Ladakh as a pressure tactic.4 How Far Will Sino-Indian Conflict Escalate? Reports suggest that India and China have reinforced troops in and near Ladakh and have brought more firepower and airpower into range.5 Some of this activity, on both sides, consists of seasonal military drills. So it is not certain that a build-up is occurring. China is less constrained and more capable of escalation than India. If China continues pressing its territorial advance, or if India tries to reclaim territory or take other territory in compensation, then the fight will expand. The conflict is taking place in rocky recesses at a far remove from the rest of the world, so there is a temptation to believe that any escalation can be controlled.6 This may be false and lead to tit-for-tat escalation. Table 2Military Balance: India Versus China In Himalayas Which side faces greater constraints? China is least constrained and most capable of escalation. Over the short run, China can utilize improved military command and capabilities in the area and can control the media and political response at home. Besting India would demonstrate that all Asian territorial claimants should defer to China. However, over the long run, aggression would cement the balance-of-power alliance between the US and India. India is more constrained than China, less capable of escalation: Modi has considerable political capital, but his conventional military advantage in this area is eroding and China has the higher ground from which to stage attacks (Table 2). India’s loss in the 1962 Himalayan war with China was a national humiliation. A repeat of such an event could destroy much of Modi’s mystique as a strongman leader and national savior. In the worst-case scenario, China would demonstrate superior military capability while the US and its allies would remain utterly aloof, leaving India looking both weak and isolated. Therefore India will engage in tit-for-tat military response while seeking diplomatic de-escalation. The US lacks interest in the dispute: Trump has already offered to mediate, presumably to demonstrate his deal-making skills again before the election. But the US does not have a compelling interest in this dispute and India does not want US mediation. If Trump takes punitive measures against China it will be for other reasons. Serious punitive measures require the stock market and economy to relapse, since at the moment Trump’s average approval rating is 43% and he hopes financial and economic gains will help him recover (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Odds President Trump Will Hike Tariffs On China Before US Election The above points suggest that China can afford to escalate if it wants to show India and the rest of Asia that the US is toothless and that China’s territorial claims in Asia should not be opposed. Since COVID-19, China has been aggressive in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, despite the fact that these areas bring economic risks. The Himalayas do not. The implication is that China’s risk appetite is large, particularly in territorial disputes, and driven by social and economic pressure at home. Investment Takeaways Because India and China (and Pakistan) have nuclear arms, and because the US could get involved, it is possible that a major escalation could occur and cause volatility in global financial markets. But it would not last long and no parties will use nuclear arms over Himalayan territorial disputes. A major conflict that results in a Chinese victory would subtract from Prime Minister Modi’s political capital and hence weigh on Indian equities, which have broken down badly since COVID-19 (Chart 7). The reason is that strong political support for Modi would enable India to continue making structural economic reforms that increase productivity. Chart 7Indian Equities Underperforming Since COVID-19 Chart 8India’s Path To Regional Primacy Lies Through Economic Opening And Reform In the long run, a major conflict, especially a humiliating defeat, would accelerate India’s attempts to improve national economic prowess for the sake of strategic security. Since India cannot achieve its strategic objective of primacy in South Asia merely through military power, it will need to do so through a stronger economic pull (Chart 8). This is an impetus for structural economic reform even beyond Modi. Hence our secularly bullish outlook on India. Indian pharmaceutical equities offer an investment opportunity (Chart 9). In an attempt to address land acquisition, which is one of the biggest constraints faced by companies looking to invest in India, New Delhi has announced that it is developing an area the size of Luxembourg to attract businesses moving out of China. The government reached out to over 1,000 US companies in April with incentives for them to move their facilities to India, with a focus on industries in which India has a comparative advantage, such as medical equipment suppliers, food processing units, textiles, leather, and auto part makers. Chart 9US And Indian Stimulus Policies Will Boost Investment In Indian Pharma While India is not as economically competitive as China, it could be attractive for non-strategic industries that would not want to relocate to the US but are looking to reduce uncertainty from US-China tensions. The next round of US fiscal stimulus is also likely to contain significant provisions that will incentivize companies to relocate from China, particularly in the medical and health care sector. For global investors, while a major Sino-Indian escalation could lead to short-term volatility, it would ultimately be a positive development if Beijing vented its nationalism on a strip of earth that is not globally relevant, rather than on the seas, which are highly relevant. Conflict between the US and China in East Asia is a far greater risk than Sino-Indian conflict. Indeed Chinese and American actions over the Taiwan Strait, North Korea, or the South and East China Seas are still far more likely than Sino-Indian tensions to affect global trade and stability and financial markets this year. The US could impose sanctions on Chinese tech and trade, a military incident could occur in the Taiwan Strait, North Korea could provoke US President Donald Trump into a new round of “fire and fury” that triggers a showdown with China, or the US and China could fight a naval skirmish in the South or East China Sea. None of these options is low probability, especially surrounding the US election. Over the short run, global investors should prepare for greater equity volatility, primarily because of hiccups in delivering new stimulus in the US, EU, and China, plus US domestic political risks and US-China-Asia strategic tensions. Stay long JPY-USD. Over the long run, a global growth rebound driven by massive global fiscal and monetary stimulus will drive the US dollar to weaken, global equities to outperform bonds, and cyclicals to outperform defensives. We remain long China-sensitive plays as well as infrastructure, cyber-security, and defense stocks. Strategically, go long Indian pharmaceuticals relative to the emerging market benchmark.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Guardian, "Soldiers fell to their deaths as India and China’s troops fought with rocks," June 17, 2020. 2 See Ashley J. Tellis, "Hustling in the Himalayas: The Sino-Indian Border Confrontation," Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 4, 2020. See also Mohan Guruswamy, "India-China Border Dispute: Is A Give And Take Possible Now?" South Asia Monitor, June 3, 2020. 3 The Treaty of Tingmosgang (1684) only specifies one checkpost, at the Lhari Stream near Demchok, leaving everything else to disputed Indian and Chinese claims. See Alexander Davis and Ruth Gamble, "The local cost of rising India-China tensions," June 1, 2020. 4 See Nayanima Basu, "India Isn’t Worried About Tension With China, Unlikely To Give In To US Pressure On Taiwan," May 13, 2020. 5 See Ren Feng and He Penglei, "PLA Xizang Military Command holds coordinated exercise in plateau region," China Military Online, June 15, 2020. See also "空降兵某旅积极探索远程兵力投送新模式 空地同步 奔赴高原". 6 The reason escalation is normally limited is because of the extreme difficulty of operating extended military operations and resupply at 13,000-feet altitude. Both sides have the ability to surge reinforcements and equalize the contest. The cost and difficulty of retaking lost territory is often prohibitive. And while India’s conventional military power may overbalance China in this region, China has the uphill advantage and has made leaps and bounds in operational capabilities in recent decades. In short, escalation is normally controllable. See Aidan Milliff, "Tension High, Altitude Higher: Logistical And Physiological Constraints On The Indo-Chinese Border," War On The Rocks, June 8, 2020.

Overweight (Downgrade Alert) In mid-April we boosted the S&P consumer discretionary index to overweight via assigning an above benchmark allocation to both internet and home improvement retailers (HIR). Our thesis to overweight consumer discretionary stocks during the recession remains intact, however, weakness in our HIR macro model (see chart), a hook down in existing home sales and tick up in inventories compelled us to institute an HIR stop at the 10% relative return mark. Bottom Line: While we remain overweight the S&P HIR index it is now on downgrade alert. We also set a stop at the 10% return mark in order to protect profits for our portfolio. Stay tuned. For additional details please refer to our June 15 Weekly Report. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI – HD, LOW.  

The ongoing COVID-19 catalyzed recession that the NBER last week confirmed commenced in February, the “second wave” risk, a flare up in the US/Sino trade war and more recently, civil unrest have dominated the news flow. However, in all this chaos, the November election has slowly moved into the background, especially the SPX return implications during the 4th year of a Presidency. The chart below shows the profile of the S&P 500 during Presidential Election calendar years, going back to the 1950s. The solid green line shows the historical mean, and shaded areas denote the 10th and 90th percentiles of SPX performance. If history rhymes, the average profile of these 17 iterations suggests that more cyclical gains are in store for the S&P 500. Nevertheless, before getting carried away, a word of caution is in order. According to our analysis if the 90th percentile proves accurate instead, then the SPX could trace this lower bound and fall 640 points or 20% from the recent peak (see chart). Bottom Line: While we remain constructive on the prospects of the broad equity market on the cyclical 9-12 months time horizon, the Presidential Election outcome is a key tail risk to our cyclically sanguine equity market view. Please refer to yesterday’s Weekly Report for additional details.

Highlights High-Yield: Our analysis of current junk spread levels relative to likely economic outcomes leaves us inclined to maintain our current recommended positioning: Overweight Ba-rated bonds, underweight bonds rated B & below. Fed/Treasuries: There is no urgency for the Fed to provide more explicit forward rate guidance. The market has already taken on board the expectation that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero at least through the end of 2022. Investors should keep portfolio duration near benchmark but add tactical overlay positions: long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, and steepeners along both the nominal and real yield curves. Securitizations: We recommend that investors continue to overweight Aaa-rated consumer ABS and CMBS, as both sectors offer attractive spreads and benefit from TALF. Despite the lack of Fed support, adding some non-Aaa consumer ABS exposure also makes sense. Investors should continue to avoid Agency MBS, where value has improved but prepayment risk remains high. Feature In case it wasn’t already obvious that the Fed will continue to act as a tailwind behind risky asset prices, Chair Powell made it abundantly clear at last week’s FOMC press conference. When asked about the risk of bubbles in financial markets, Powell’s response was to focus on the millions of unemployed workers and imply that it would be a dereliction of the Fed’s duties if it were to hold back on monetary stimulus because it thought asset prices were too high. Ironically, this strong statement of market support came the day before the S&P 500 fell 6% in a single session. Nonetheless, with the Fed providing such aggressive forward guidance on top of direct intervention in certain segments of the fixed income market, it behooves us to consider whether our recommended portfolio allocation is insufficiently aggressive. The Strong Performance Of Low-Rated Junk Chart 1Lower-Rated Junk Bonds Playing Catch-Up Within the high-yield corporate bond market we have been advising an overweight allocation to Ba-rated bonds but an underweight allocation to bonds rated B and below. The reasoning is that Ba-rated bonds are largely eligible for the Fed’s emergency lending facilities while lower-rated junk bonds are mostly left out in the cold.1 This positioning worked well throughout April and the first half of May, but lower-rated junk bonds have started to play catch-up during the past month (Chart 1). High-Yield Index Fundamentals To get a sense of whether we should extend our overweight recommendation to the B and below credit tiers, let’s first perform a valuation exercise on the entire high-yield index. In this exercise we consider current spread levels relative to likely economic outcomes. We set aside any impact from direct Fed intervention for the time being. Our analysis revolves around the High-Yield Default-Adjusted Spread (Chart 2). This valuation measure takes the junk index spread and subtracts default losses realized during the subsequent 12 month period. The spread’s historical average is around 250 bps, but it has occasionally dipped below zero during periods when default losses swamp the compensation offered by the index. Chart 2High-Yield Index Assessment: Default-Adjusted Spread The Default-Adjusted Spread also lines up very closely with 12-month excess returns (Chart 2, panel 2). A simple linear regression model of 12-month excess returns versus the Default-Adjusted Spread gives an R2 of 53% and tells us that the threshold between positive and negative excess returns is a Default-Adjusted Spread of 187 bps. That is, if the Default-Adjusted Spread is above 187 bps we should expect high-yield to outperform Treasuries, if it is below 187 bps we should expect high-yield to underperform. With that in mind, we can apply some quick figures to the current context. The High-Yield index option-adjusted spread is 611 bps. If we assume a default rate of 10% and recovery rate of 25% for the next 12 months, we get expected default losses of 750 bps and a Default-Adjusted Spread of -139 bps. We should expect Treasuries to outperform junk bonds in that scenario. Ba-rated bonds are largely eligible for the Fed’s emergency lending facilities while lower-rated junk bonds are mostly left out in the cold. We can also perform the same sort of analysis in reverse. If we target a Default-Adjusted Spread of 187 bps – the spread that is consistent with high-yield performing in line with Treasuries – and we also assume a recovery rate of 25%, then the current index spread gives us an implied 12-month default rate of 5.7% (Chart 2, bottom panel). That is, we should expect high-yield to outperform Treasuries during the next 12 months if the default rate comes in below 5.7%, and underperform if it is above 5.7%. There are a couple assumptions used in the above analysis that require clarification. First, we relied on a simple linear regression model to get the result that a Default-Adjusted Spread of 187 bps is consistent with junk bonds breaking even with Treasuries. This is not an entirely accurate depiction of the historical record. Table 1 shows a more complete picture of the historical linkage between the Default-Adjusted Spread and 12-month high-yield excess returns. Here, we see that junk bonds have actually outperformed duration-matched Treasuries 81% of the time when the Default-Adjusted Spread is between 150 bps and 200 bps, and 72% of the time when it is between 100 bps and 150 bps. Relative junk bond losses only become more likely than gains when the Default-Adjusted Spread is below 100 bps. Table 1The Default-Adjusted Spread & High-Yield Excess Returns Second, we assumed a 25% recovery rate when we calculated our implied default rate of 5.7%. This is low compared to the historical average, but we would argue that a low recovery rate assumption is appropriate in the current environment. We analyzed the main economic drivers of default and recovery rates in a recent Special Report and found that the recovery rate observed during an economic downturn is primarily driven by corporate balance sheet leverage heading into that downturn.2 Corporate balance sheets were carrying a lot of debt heading into the current recession, meaning that we should expect a lower-than-normal recovery rate. In fact, the current trailing 12-month recovery rate is 22%, below our assumed level. Table 2 shows what the Default-Adjusted Spread will be for the next 12 months under different default and recovery rate assumptions. We think that 25% is a reasonable recovery rate assumption and expect that the default rate will be somewhere between 9% and 12% during the next 12 months. At present, Moody’s baseline 12-month default rate forecast is 11.6%. Table 2Default-Adjusted Spread (BPs) Given Different Assumptions For Default And Recovery Rates Clearly, junk spreads do not offer adequate compensation for default losses in the economic environment we anticipate. This logic also extends to the individual B and Caa/C credit tiers when we look at them in isolation. A Focus On B-Rated & Below Junk Bonds Charts 3A and 3B show the historical linkage between Default-Adjusted Spreads and excess returns for those specific credit tiers, with forecasts plugged in for “mild”, “moderate” and “severe” default scenarios. All three scenarios use a recovery rate of 25%. The assumed default rate is 6% in the “mild” scenario, 9% in the “moderate” scenario and 12% in the “severe” scenario. Default-adjusted compensation is unattractive in all three cases. Chart 3AB-Rated Default-Adjusted Spread Chart 3BCaa/C-Rated Default-Adjusted Spread Bottom Line: Our analysis of current junk spread levels relative to likely economic outcomes leaves us inclined to maintain our current recommended positioning: Overweight Ba-rated bonds, underweight bonds rated B & below. The Fed’s support for the Ba credit tier will significantly limit default losses for those bonds, making current spread levels attractive. However, absent Fed intervention, junk spreads are already far too tight. Investors should avoid bonds rated B & below where issuers generally don’t benefit from the Fed’s emergency programs. No Rush For More Explicit Forward Guidance In addition to Chair Powell’s strong statement of support for risky assets, last week’s FOMC meeting brought us the committee’s updated interest rate projections. With only two exceptions, those projections revealed that all Fed policymakers expect to keep the fed funds rate at its current level at least until the end of 2022. There had been some expectation that the Fed might provide more explicit forward guidance for the funds rate. Something along the lines of the “Evans Rule” that was used during the last zero-lower-bound episode. For example, the Fed could pledge to not increase rates until the unemployment rate is below some specified threshold or inflation is above some specified threshold. Fed policymakers expect to keep the fed funds rate at its current level at least until the end of 2022. This sort of forward guidance would be useful if the Fed needed to convince markets about its commitment to keeping rates pinned near zero, but the market has already internalized that message. Notice in Chart 4 that expectations priced into the overnight index swap curve show no rate hikes through the end of 2022. The same goes for the median estimate from the New York Fed’s April 2020 Survey of Market Participants. Chart 4Fed Policymakers And Market Participants Agree: No Hikes Until 2023 More explicit forward rate guidance will likely be required in the future, when the market starts to price-in the eventual return of rate hikes. But for the time being, the Fed will probably be content to stay the course. Treasury Positioning The combination of the Fed’s strong commitment to zero interest rates and the risks to the 6-12 month economic outlook that we detailed in last week’s report make us inclined to maintain our recommended “At Benchmark” portfolio duration stance.3 However, we also recognize that yields are more likely to rise than fall in the coming months as the US economy re-opens and the economic data trend higher. For this reason, we advise holding several tactical overlay trades that will profit from rising bond yields: overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, duration-neutral nominal curve steepeners, real yield curve steepeners. On TIPS, May’s CPI report showed a third consecutive month-over-month decline but the drop was far less severe than what was seen in March and April (Chart 5). This is a preliminary indication that we could already be passed the trough in inflation. The fact that trimmed mean CPI has not followed the core measure lower during the past few months is further evidence that inflation may not fall much more from its current level (Chart 5, bottom panel). If inflation has indeed bottomed, then our recommendation to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries looks very good. We calculate that the current 1-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 0.1%, slightly below trailing 12-month headline CPI inflation (Chart 5, panel 2). Along the nominal Treasury curve, we continue to recommend favoring the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This position will profit from continued 2/10 yield curve steepening (Chart 6). We also recommend steepeners along the real yield curve. The real 2/10 slope has already steepened a lot (Chart 6, bottom panel), but has more room to run given that the 2-year cost of inflation compensation remains well below the 10-year cost (Chart 6, panel 3). Chart 5Is The Trough In Inflation Already##br## Behind Us? Chart 6Keep Steepeners Along Both The Nominal And Real Yield Curves Bottom Line: There is no urgency for the Fed to provide more explicit forward rate guidance. The market has already taken on board the expectation that the funds rate will stay pinned at zero at least through the end of 2022. Investors should keep portfolio duration near benchmark but add tactical overlay positions: long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, and steepeners along both the nominal and real yield curves. Securitized Products Update Take Some Non-Aaa Risk In Consumer ABS, But Not In CMBS Since the Fed rolled out its emergency lending facilities in late-March, our spread product strategy has been to favor sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. This has meant owning Aaa-rated consumer ABS and CMBS, which are eligible for the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), and avoiding non-Aaa securitizations, which don’t qualify for Fed support. How has this worked out? Aaa-rated ABS and CMBS have both performed well since spreads peaked on March 23 (Chart 7). Within ABS, Aaa issues have beaten Treasuries by 390 bps since March 23 compared to 290 bps for non-Aaa securities. In CMBS, non-Aaa securities have lagged, losing 470 bps versus Treasuries since March 23 compared to gains of 810 bps for Aaa CMBS. As Chart 7 makes plain, no segments of either market have regained all of the ground that was lost during March’s blow-up. Chart 7Opportunities In Non-Aaa Consumer ABS, But Not In CMBS Going forward, we think it is wise to re-consider our strategy when it comes to consumer ABS. Specifically, we think investors should dip into non-Aaa ABS where we see potential for strong returns, even in the absence of Fed support. The reason for our optimism is that consumer credit losses will probably turn out to be significantly lower than many had feared in March. During the past two months, we learned that federal government stimulus actually caused real personal income to rise by 9% since February. Also, consumers have generally been able to keep up with their debt payments.4  According to data from TransUnion, the percentage of credit card and mortgage loans that are more than 30 days past due actually declined in April compared to March. For auto loans it only increased by 7 bps (Table 3). Further, the data show that households paid off significantly more of their credit card balances than usual in April, presumably because they received an influx of cash from the government but had fewer spending opportunities due to the quarantine. Table 3No Spike In Consumer Credit Delinquencies There remains a risk that Congress will delay passing further stimulus measures to keep consumers flush during the next few months. But we think enough stimulus will be delivered to prevent a significant default spike in credit cards and auto loans. Investors should add some exposure to non-Aaa consumer ABS. CMBS is a different story. The commercial real estate market is particularly challenged by the current environment. The office and retail sectors in particular were already facing structural headwinds from remote working and online shopping, respectively. The pandemic has accelerated the adoption of those trends. Not surprisingly, May’s CMBS delinquency rate saw its largest jump since 2017 and more delinquencies are certainly on the way (Chart 8). Chart 8Challenging Environment For CMBS Investors should continue to avoid non-Aaa CMBS. Continue To Avoid Agency MBS We have been advising an underweight allocation to Agency MBS because, even though the securities benefit from support through the Fed’s direct MBS purchases, value has been insufficiently attractive. That is starting to change. Agency MBS spreads widened considerably during the past month and are now very close to Aa-rated corporate bond spreads. They are also greater than Agency CMBS and Aaa ABS spreads (Chart 9). However, despite improving valuations, we remain concerned about risks in the MBS sector. Notice in the top 2 panels of Chart 9 that the MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) has returned to 2012 levels, but the nominal spread (which is not adjusted for expected prepayment losses) remains quite low. This means that the prepayment loss assumption embedded in the current index OAS is much lower than it was in 2012. Is this reasonable? We estimate that 63% of the conventional 30-year MBS index is eligible for refinancing. In part, yes it is. Even with mortgage rates at all-time lows, we estimate that 63% of the conventional 30-year MBS index is eligible for refinancing. This is lower than what was seen in 2012 (Chart 10). However, we would also argue that mortgage rates have room to fall further Chart 9Agency MBS Spreads Have Widened Chart 10Prepayment Risk Is Elevated Despite having fallen to all-time lows, this year’s decline in the 30-year mortgage rate has been much smaller than what was seen in Treasury or MBS yields (Chart 10, bottom 3 panels). The 30-year mortgage rate could drop by another 50 bps and it would only restore typical primary and secondary mortgage spread levels. We estimate that a further 50 bps drop in the mortgage rate would increase the refinanceable share of the MBS index from 63% to 74% (horizontal dashed line in the second panel of Chart 10). This is below 2012 levels, but still leads us to the conclusion that the current index OAS understates the risk of prepayment losses. In summary, the Agency MBS OAS is starting to look more attractive but we are concerned that it embeds an overly optimistic prepayment loss assumption. Investors should maintain underweight allocations to Agency MBS. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors continue to overweight Aaa-rated consumer ABS and CMBS, as both sectors offer attractive spreads and benefit from TALF. Despite the lack of Fed support, adding some non-Aaa consumer ABS exposure also makes sense. Investors should continue to avoid Agency MBS, where value has improved but prepayment risk remains high. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 4Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Footnotes 1 For more details on the Fed’s emergency lending facilities please see US Investment Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures”, dated April 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis”, dated March 31, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on the outlook for the US consumer please see US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “So Far, So Good (How Markets Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Washington, DC)”, dated June 8, 2020, available at usis.bcaresearch.com   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification