Wolfgang Bauer

How to find relative value in EUR and USD investment grade credit using CDS

There is more than one way to skin a cat for credit investors. Those looking for credit exposure can do so through either owning the debt issued by an issuer or by selling credit default swap (CDS) protection for the same issuer. The differential in price between the corporate bond and CDS contract can mean the difference between outperforming and underperforming in a world of tight credit spreads and low yields. Additionally, it is possible to do this for the whole investment grade or high yield market, allowing bond investors to gain credit exposure in their preferred geographical region (for example, the U.S., Europe, or Asia). U.S. and European credit spreads have compressed substantially and are now at levels last seen before the Lehman Brothers collapse. Given this convergence, the question for global IG bond investors today is which market is relatively more attractive from a valuation perspective?

Let’s first take a look at EUR versus USD credit. The easiest way to do this is by using two credit default swap indices. These indices (also known as CDI) represent 125 of the most liquid five-year credit default swaps on investment grade (IG) entities in Europe (iTRAXX EUR 5Y) and North America (CDX IG 5Y). Looking at the historical performance of both indices, the differential between both index levels remained basically flat until the onset of the financial crisis in the second half of 2007. During this period, iTRAXX EUR traded around 10-15 basis points (bps) tighter than the CDX IG. During the crisis, the absolute levels of both indices increased substantially but iTRAXX EUR outperformed CDX IG, with the North American index moving up to a peak level of around 230bps in late 2008. In the following three years, with the easing of the U.S. recession and the emergence of the Eurozone crisis, CDX IG outperformed iTRAXX EUR by around 120 bps.

Starting from its minimum of -64 bps in November 2008, the index differential turned positive in May 2010 and reached its peak value of 57 bps in November 2011. With the Eurozone crisis calming down, iTRAXX EUR has once again outperformed CDX IG. Today the index differential has virtually disappeared (4 bps), and both indices have tightened to around 65bps by the end of May, a level not seen since the end of 2007. iTRAXX EUR continued to tighten in June and temporarily traded through CDX IG for the first time since March 2010.

CDS indices: EUR vs. USD IG credit

Selling CDS protection for a company creates a credit risk exposure that is essentially equivalent to buying a comparable bond of the same issuer. Hence, from a fixed income investor’s point of view, it is worth comparing the CDS spread and the credit spread of the cash bond. The difference between these two is often referred to as the CDS basis. Positive values (i.e., CDS spread > bond Z-spread) indicate a higher compensation for taking the same credit risk through the CDS of a company rather than owning the bond of a company, and vice versa for a negative basis.

Drawing a direct like-for-like comparison between CDS and corporate bond indices can be tricky. For example, it is impossible to find appropriate outstanding cash bonds for all the companies that are in the CDS indices. Furthermore, CDS indices comprise contracts with a certain maturity (e.g., five years) and roll every six months, whereas cash bonds approach a predefined maturity and are eventually redeemed, assuming they don’t default or are perpetual instruments.

We approached the problem by constructing our own equally-weighted non-financial CDS and cash bond indices, both for U.S. and Eurozone issuers. In terms of EUR issuers, we started from the current iTRAXX EUR roll, ranked the constituent entities by total debt outstanding and selected the top 20 Eurozone non-financial issuers with comparable outstanding bonds (c. five years until maturity, senior unsecured, vanilla, reasonable level of liquidity, etc.) for our CDS and bond indices. We then compared the year-to-date evolution of weekly CDS and cash bond spreads as well as the CDS basis, averaged over the 20 index members. For our USD indices we applied the same strategy, selecting a subset of 20 US non-financial issuers from the current CDX IG roll.

The chart below shows CDS spreads, bond Z-spreads and CDS bases both for our EUR and USD indices. Throughout the year, all four non-financial IG index spreads have been grinding tighter. The CDS basis for USD non-financial IG credit has been consistently negative (-19 bps on average). In absolute terms the negative USD basis has receded, moving from between -30 and -20 bps in January to -11 bps in the first week of July. In contrast, except for the first week of January which might be distorted by low trading volumes, the EUR non-financial IG CDS basis has been positive (+12 bps on average) and amounts to +11 bps for the first week of July.

CDS basis: EUR vs. USD non-financial IG credit

Several reasons have been put forward to explain the contrast between EUR and USD CDS basis values, including supply/demand imbalances within European cash bond markets adding a scarcity premium to bond prices and thus suppressing bond spreads. It has also been argued that in Europe CDS contracts were predominantly used for hedging purposes (i.e., to reduce credit exposure by buying the CDS contract) driving up CDS spreads, whereas the use of USD CDS contracts was more balanced between increasing and decreasing credit risk exposure.

In the current market environment characterised by low yields and tight credit spreads, CDS basis values do matter. The choice between a cash bond or a credit derivative is another lever fixed income investors can use to exploit relative value opportunities. By carefully selecting the financial instrument, cash bond vs. CDS contract, a spread pickup of tens of basis points can be realised for taking equivalent credit risk. A positive basis indicates that the CDS looks cheap relative to the cash bond, and vice versa for a negative basis. For instance, at the moment it often makes a lot of sense for us to get exposure to EUR IG credit risk through CDS contracts rather than through cash bonds, when we see attractive positive CDS basis values.

jim_leaviss_100

Bondfire of the Maturities: how to improve credit market liquidity

Liquidity in credit markets has been a hot topic in recent months. The Bank of England has warned about low volatility in financial markets leading to excessive reaching for yield, the FT suggested that the US authorities are considering exit fees for bond funds in case of a run on the asset class, and you’ve all seen the charts showing how assets in corporate bond funds have risen sharply just as Wall Street’s appetite for assigning capital to trade bonds has fallen. But why the worry about corporate bond market liquidity rather than that of equity markets? There are a couple of reasons. Firstly the corporate bond markets are incredibly fragmented, with companies issuing in multiple maturities, currencies and structures, unlike the stock markets where there are generally just one or two lines of shares per company. Secondly, stocks are traded on exchanges, and market makers have a commitment to buy and sell shares in all market conditions. No such commitment exists in the credit markets – after the new issue process you might see further offers or bids, but you might not – future liquidity can never be taken for granted.

So how can we make liquidity in corporate bond and credit markets as good as that in equity markets? First of all let’s consider fragmentation. If I type RBS corp <Go> into Bloomberg there are 1011 results. That’s 1011 different RBS bonds still outstanding. It’s 19 pages of individual bonds, in currencies ranging from the Australian dollar to the South African rand. There are floating rate notes, fixed rate bonds with coupons ranging from below 1% to above 10%, maturities from now to infinity (perpetuals), inflation-linked bonds, bonds with callability (embedded options), and there are various seniorities in the capital structure (senior, lower tier 2, upper tier 2, tier 1, prefs). Some of these issues have virtually no bonds left outstanding and others are over a billion dollars in size. Each has a prospectus of hundreds of pages detailing the exact features, protections and risks of the instrument. Pity the poor RBS capital markets interns on 3am photocopying duty. The first way we can improve liquidity in bond markets is to have a bonfire of the bond issues. One corporate issuer, one equity, one bond.

Jim blog

How would this work? Well the only way that you could have a fully fungible, endlessly repeatable bond issue is to make it perpetual. The benchmark liquid bond for each corporate would have no redemption date. If a company wanted to increase its debt burden it would issue more of the same bond, and if it wanted to retire debt it would do exactly the same as it might do with its equity capital base – make an announcement to the market that it is doing a buyback and acquire and cancel those bonds that it purchases in the open market.

What about the coupon? Well you could decide that all bonds would have, say, a 5% coupon, although that would lead to long periods where bonds are priced significantly away from par (100) if the prevailing yields were in a high or low interest rate environment. But you see the problems that this causes in the bond futures market where there is a sporadic need to change the notional coupon on the future to reflect the changing rate environment. So, for this reason – and for a purpose I’ll come on to in a while – all of these new perpetual bonds will pay a floating rate of interest. They’ll be perpetual Floating Rate Notes (FRNs). And unlike the current FRN market where each bond pays, say Libor or Euribor plus a margin (occasionally minus a margin for extremely strong issuers), all bonds would pay Libor or Euribor flat. With all corporate bonds having exactly the same (non) maturity and paying exactly the same coupon, ranking perceived creditworthiness becomes a piece of cake – the price tells you everything. Weak high yield issues would trade well below par, AAA supranationals like the World Bank, above it.

So your immediate objection is likely to be this – what if I, the end investor, don’t want perpetual floating rate cashflows? Well you can add duration (interest rate risk) in the deeply liquid government bond markets or similarly liquid bond futures market, and with corporate bonds now themselves highly liquid, a sale of the instrument would create “redemption proceeds” for an investor to fund a liability. And the real beauty of the new instruments all paying floating rates is that they can be combined with the most liquid financial derivative markets in the world, the swaps market. An investor would be able to swap floating rate cashflows for fixed rate cashflows. This happens already on a significant scale at most asset managers. Creating bigger and deeper corporate bond markets would make this even more commonplace – the swaps markets would become even more important and liquid as the one perpetual FRN for each company is transformed into the currency and duration of the end investor’s requirement (or indeed the company itself can transform its funding requirements in the same way as many do already). Investors could even create inflation linked cashflows as that CPI swaps market deepened too.

So what are the problems and objections to all of this? Well loads I’m guessing, not least from paper mills, prospectus and tombstone manufacturers (the Perspex vanity bricks handed out to everyone who helped issue a new bond). But the huge increase in swapping activity will increase the need for collateral (cash, government bonds) in the system, as well as potentially increasing systemic risks as market complexity increases. Collateralisation and the move to exchanges should reduce those systemic risks. Another issue regards taxation – junky issuers will be selling their bonds at potentially big discounts to par. Tax authorities don’t like this very much (they see it as a way of avoiding income tax) and it means that investors would have to be able to account for that pull to par to be treated as income rather than capital gain. Finally I reluctantly concede there might have to be 2 separate bond issues for banks and financials. One reflecting senior risk, and one reflecting subordinated contingent capital risk (CoCos). But if we must do this, the authorities should create a standard structure here too, with a common capital trigger and conversion. Presently there are various levels for the capital triggers, and some bonds convert into equity whilst others wipe you out entirely. There is so much complexity that it is no wonder that a recent RBS survey of bond investors showed that 90% of them rate themselves as having a higher understanding of CoCos than the market.

Addressing the second difference between bonds and equities, the other requirement would be for the investment banks to move fully to exchange trading of credit, and to assume a market making requirement for those brokers who lead manage bond transactions. This doesn’t of course mean that bonds won’t fall in price if investors decide to sell en masse – but it does mean that there will always be a price. This greater liquidity should mean lower borrowing costs for companies, and less concern about a systemic credit crisis in the future.

richard_woolnough_100

Global banking – does it hurt ‘national champions’?

There has been a lot of comment recently on the slimming down at Barclays investment bank. This has generally been couched as a change in business plan, with less of a focus on fixed income, commodities and derivatives, to a less capital intensive more traditional model. One of the interesting things for us is that this is not an idiosyncratic event, but part of a trend.

Barclays, like RBS, UBS, and Credit Suisse, has decided to reverse its pre crisis ambition of being a dominant player in the global fixed income market. From a pure opportunity set this seems strange as the huge increase in volume of outstanding corporate and government debt is potentially an enormous business opportunity. So why the retreat?

Like any company that exits a business line, presumably it’s because Barclays believes it is or will be less profitable. Despite the expansion of fixed income markets, banks are less able to make money due to a change in their cost of capital. Regulators have effectively reduced the banks’ ability to make money, via constraints on leverage ratios, which are a good thing from a bondholder’s perspective but increases their effective costs and reduces profitability.

However, this banking trend also has a European flavour. The firms scaling back their ambitions are all non US banks. Why the difference across the Atlantic given both economic blocks have faced harsher regulation and more capital requirements? We think North American banks have a natural advantage versus their “alien” investment bank counterparts in three ways.

Firstly they operate in the largest capital market in the world. This gives them strong economies of scale compared to those whose ‘national champion’ home market advantage is in  smaller markets.

Secondly, even when comparing the big US capital markets with the second largest Euro capital markets, the European players have a disadvantage. The euro is a single market, but  banks  are constrained nationally.  They are all large relative to their domestic economy, which makes the home regulator understandably nervous, imposing higher capital, leverage and loss-absorbing debt requirements on the banks in their jurisdiction. This is less of an issue in the US, where the geographic regulated area and the currency coincide for a significantly greater percentage of their business. Therefore the US regulator can be more relaxed about having large banks.

Thirdly, globalisation is also resulting in more dominance from US non-bank corporations, whether that be through their innovation, or their own natural economies of scale in the US. This can be seen over the last year with Vodafone selling its wireless business to Verizon, Liberty Global buying Virgin Media, and the potential attempts by Pfizer to take control of Astra Zeneca. It is natural for US businesses to work with US banks, and the development of large corporations with large funding needs means there needs to be a large capital market. All these things point to a reinforcing increase in the relative size of the US capital markets. This is one of the factors that has been driving the increase in the relative sizes of the European and US investment grade bond markets, as illustrated in the chart below.

US IG bond market growing faster than European market

Barclays’ reduced ambition is part of a banking trend. We have seen these kind of moves before in the banking sector where bank management move together in the same direction. The lesson from these recent moves is that globalisation will not only change the face of the world economy, but will benefit those nations not only who are efficient and innovative, but have the largest efficient domestic markets, thus allowing economies of scale. Good news for the US listed companies, and a potential issue for the rest of the world.

 

anthony_doyle_100

Sell in May and go away – does it work for European fixed income?

As is usually the case on 1 May, there was a plethora of articles and commentary on the “sell in May and go away” effect. If you are unfamiliar with this highly sophisticated trading strategy, it involves closing out any equity exposure you may have on 30 April and re-investing on 1 November. Historically, U.S. equities have underperformed in the six-month period commencing May and ending in October, compared to the six-month period from November to April. No one knows why this seasonal pattern exists, but some theories include lower trading volumes in the summer holiday months and increased investment flows when investors come back from holidays.

With this in mind, we thought it might be interesting to see if the same effect exists in European fixed income markets. In order to identify the sell in May effect, we generated total returns on a monthly basis for a portfolio of European government, investment grade and high yield bonds. We then generated a total return for a portfolio that was invested between the months of November and April and compared this with a portfolio that was invested between the months of May and October. In order to generate the maximum number of observations possible, we went back to the inception of the respective Merrill Lynch Bank of America indices. The results are below.

Slide1

There appears to be a seasonal effect in European high yield markets. This is the fixed income asset class that is most correlated to equity markets, and the analysis shows that a superior return was generated by only being invested between the months of November and April (199% total return). In fact, this strategy substantially outperformed a strategy of being invested over the whole period (1997 – April 2014). If an investor chose to only invest between the months of May and October, they would have suffered a 21% loss over the past 16 years.

Slide2

The natural extension of this analysis is to gauge how a trading strategy that was fully invested in European government bonds between the months of May and October and fully invested in European investment grade between November and April would have performed over the past 18 years. We can then assess how this strategy would have performed relative to portfolios that were fully invested in European government bonds, European investment grade corporate bonds and European equities only. The results show that a strategy of selling investment grade assets in May and buying government bonds has produced superior returns equal to 5.9% per annum, outperforming European equities by 56% in total or 2.5% p.a.

Slide3

The above chart shows the same analysis, this time looking at how the strategy would have performed in total return terms but we have replaced European investment grade exposure with European high yield. Following this strategy would have generated an annualised return of around 10.5% or 391% over 16 and a bit years. This is far superior to the returns on offer in the European high yield and European equity markets over the same time period, which were 155% and 43% respectively.

Our analysis shows that there is a strong seasonal effect evident in European high yield markets, where returns are more volatile and there can be large upside and downside contributions due to fluctuations in the capital value of high yield bonds. However, it should be acknowledged that the results have been biased by the fact that major risk-off events (like Lehman Brothers, the Asian financial crisis and the Russian financial crisis for example) have generally occurred between the months of May and October. Nonetheless, historical total returns suggest that there is a seasonal effect in European high yield markets that investors should probably be aware of. Ignoring transaction costs or tax implications which would eat into any total returns, a strategy of selling investment grade or high yield corporate bonds in May and buying government bonds until November would have produced superior returns relative to European government bonds, investment grade corporate bonds, high yield corporate bonds and European equities.

Whilst it is always dangerous to base a trading strategy around a nursery rhyme, based on historical total returns there does appear to be a bit of sense in selling risk assets in May, retreating into government bonds which would likely benefit most in a risk-off event, and adding risk back into fixed income portfolios in November. But of course, another old saying still rings true – past performance is not a guide to future performance.

Wolfgang Bauer

The Great Compression of peripheral to core European risk premiums

Are investors still compensated adequately for investing in peripheral rather than core European debt, or has the on-going convergence eroded debt valuation differentials altogether? In his latest blog entry, James highlighted five signs indicating that the bond markets consider the Eurozone crisis resolved. Inter alia, James pointed out that risk premiums for peripheral vs. core European high yield credit had essentially disappeared over the past two years. Here I would like to extend the periphery/core comparison by taking a look at investment grade (IG) credit and sovereign debt.

First, let’s have a look at the spread evolution of peripheral and core European non-financial (i.e., industrials and utilities) IG indices over the past 10 years. In addition to the absolute asset swap (ASW) spread levels, we plotted the relative spread differentials between peripheral and core credit. The past ten years can be divided into three distinct phases. In the first phase, peripheral and core credit were trading closely in line with each other; differentials did not exceed 50 bps. The Lehman collapse in September 2008 and subsequent market shocks lead to a steep increase in ASW spreads, but the strong correlation between peripheral and core credit remained intact. Only in the second phase, during the Eurozone crisis from late 2009 onwards, spreads decoupled with core spreads staying relatively flat while peripheral spreads increased drastically. Towards the end of this divergence period, spread differentials peaked at more than 280 bps. ECB President Draghi’s much-cited “whatever it takes” speech in July 2012 rang in the third and still on-going phase, i.e., spread convergence.

As at the end of March 2014, peripheral vs. core spread differentials for non-financial IG credit had come back down to only 18 bps, a value last seen four years ago. The potential for further spread convergence, and hence relative outperformance of peripheral vs. core IG credit going forward, appears rather limited. Within the data set covering the past 10 years, the current yield differential is in very good agreement with the median value of 17 bps. Over a 5-year time horizon, the current differential looks already very tight, falling into the first quartile (18th percentile).

Peripheral vs. core European non-financial IG credit

Moving on from IG credit to sovereign debt, we took a look at the development of peripheral and core European government bond yields over the past 10 years. As a proxy we used monthly generic 10 year yields for the largest economies in the periphery and the core (Italy and Germany, respectively). Again three phases are visible in the chart, but the transition from strong correlation to divergence occurred earlier, i.e., already in the wake of the Lehman collapse. At this point in time, due to their “safe haven” status German government bond yields declined faster than Italian yields. Both yields then trended downwards until the Eurozone crisis gained momentum, causing German yields to further decrease, whereas Italian yields peaked. Once again, Draghi’s publicly announced commitment to the Euro marked the turning point towards on-going core/periphery convergence.

Italian vs. German government bonds

Currently investors can earn an additional c. 170 bps when investing in 10 year Italian instead of 10 year German government bonds. This seems to be a decent yield pick-up, particularly when you compare it with the more than humble 18 bps of core/periphery IG spread differential mentioned above. As yield differentials have declined substantially from values beyond 450 bps over the past two years, the obvious question for bond investors at this point in time is: How low can you go? Well, the answer mainly depends on what the bond markets consider to be the appropriate reference period. If markets actually believe that the Eurozone crisis has been resolved once and for all, not much imagination is needed to expect yield differentials to disappear entirely, just like in the first phase in the chart above. When looking at the past 10 years as a reference period, there seems to be indeed some headroom left for further convergence as the current yield differential ranks high within the third quartile (69th percentile). However, if bond markets consider future flare-ups of Eurozone turbulences a realistic scenario, the past 5 years would probably provide a more suitable reference period. In this case, the current spread differential appears less generous, falling into the second quartile (39th percentile). The latter reading does not seem to reflect the prevailing market sentiment, though, as indicated by unabated yield convergence over the past months.

In summary, a large portion of peripheral to core European risk premiums have already been reaped, making current valuations of peripheral debt distinctly less attractive than two years ago. Compared to IG credit spreads, there seems to be more value in government bond yields, both in terms of current core/periphery differentials and regarding the potential for future relative outperformance of peripheral vs. core debt due to progressive convergence. But, of course, on-going convergence would require bond markets to keep believing that the Eurozone crisis is indeed ancient history.

Wolfgang Bauer

Seeking relative value in USD, EUR and GBP corporate bonds

In terms of investment grade credit, it has been a common theme for global fixed income investors to think of EUR denominated credit as relatively expensive versus USD credit. Conversely, many see GBP corporate bonds as relatively cheap. But can it really be as simple and clear-cut as this? To answer this question, I have compared monthly asset swap (ASW) spreads of IG credit, issued in these three currencies, both on an absolute spread and a relative spread differential (EUR vs. USD and GBP vs. USD) basis.

At first, I looked at the three BoAML corporate master indices for publicly issued IG debt, denominated in USD, EUR and GBP. As shown below, until the onset of the financial crisis in the middle of 2007, USD IG credit was trading at spread levels of around 50 bps, which is almost exactly in line with GBP and on average only 15 bps wider than EUR IG credit. During the financial crisis, USD spreads widened more dramatically than EUR and GBP spreads. At peak levels in November 2008, when USD spreads reached 485 bps, EUR and GBP credit spreads were significantly tighter (by 215 bps and 123 bps, respectively). Subsequently, GBP IG spreads surpassed USD spreads again in May 2009 and have been wider ever since.

Slide1

In contrast, EUR IG credit spreads have been consistently tighter than USD spreads. Even at the height of the Eurozone crisis in late 2011, the EUR vs. USD credit spread differential was negative, if only marginally. Over the past three years, USD IG credit has been trading on average at a spread level of 166 bps, i.e., nearly 30 bps wider than EUR IG credit (137 bps average spread) and c. 50 bps tighter than GBP IG credit (215 bps average spread). Hence, when only looking at an IG corporate master index level, it is justified to say that subsequent to the financial crisis EUR credit has been looking relatively expensive and GBP credit relatively cheap compared to USD credit.

Taking only headline master index spreads into consideration is an overly simplistic approach. A direct comparison between the USD, EUR and GBP corporate master indices is distorted by two main factors: index duration and credit rating composition. As shown below, there are substantial differences in terms of effective index duration between the three master indices. Over the past ten years, the effective duration of the USD master index has been on average 6.2, whereas the EUR and the GBP indices exhibited values of 4.4 and 7.3, respectively. Currently, index duration differentials account for -2.1 (EUR vs. USD) and 1.4 (GBP vs. USD).

Slide2

These significant deviations in duration, and thus sensitivity of bond prices towards changes in interest rate, render a like-for-like index comparison problematic. The same applies to differences in credit rating composition. Take, for example, the rating structures of the USD and the EUR master indices in March 2010. Whereas the USD index hardly contained any AAA (below 1%) and only c. 18% AA rated bonds, the EUR index comprised nearly 6% AAA and c. 26% AA bonds. In contrast, the ratio of BBB bonds was significantly higher in the USD index (almost 40%) than in the EUR index (c. 22%). The credit quality on that date was distinctly higher for the EUR index than for the USD index, and directly comparing both indices would therefore be a bit like comparing apples to… well, not necessarily oranges but maybe overripe apples, for lack of a more imaginative metaphor.

Duration and credit rating biases can be removed from the analysis – or at least materially reduced – by using bond indices with narrow maturity and credit rating bands. As an example, I plotted relative spread differentials (i.e., EUR vs. USD and GBP vs. USD) for the past 10 years, based on the respective BoAML 5-10 year BBB corporate indices. To add another layer of complexity, this time I did not use headline corporate index level spreads but differentiated between financials and industrials instead. As only relative spread differences are shown, positive values indicate relatively cheap credit versus USD credit and, conversely, negative values signal relatively expensive credit.

Slide3

Until October 2010, the graphs follow a very similar path, EUR and GBP credit spreads trade fairly in line with USD spreads up to the financial crisis, when USD spreads widen more strongly than both EUR and GBP spreads, pushing spread differentials temporarily into deeply negative territory (below -220 bps in the case of financials). Then things got more interesting as spread differentials seem to decouple to a certain extent from October 2010 onwards. At this level of granularity it becomes clear that it is an inaccurate generalisation to refer to EUR credit as expensive and GBP credit as cheap versus USD credit.

In terms of 5-10 year BBB credit, EUR financials have in fact been trading consistently wider than USD financials, although the spread difference has been falling considerably from its peak Eurozone crisis level of 201 bps in November 2011 to currently only 10 bps. EUR industrials have been looking more expensive than USD industrials since early 2007 (c. 35 bps tighter on average over the past 3 years). The trajectory of GBP financials spread differentials has been broadly following the EUR financials’ humped pattern since late 2010, rising steeply to a maximum value of 259 bps in May 2012 and subsequently falling to current values at around 115 bps. GBP industrials have been looking moderately cheap compared to USD industrials since late 2010 (c. 37 bps wider on average over the past 3 years), but the spread differential has recently vanished. Hence, regarding 5-10 year BBB credit, currently only GBP financials are looking cheap and EUR industrials expensive versus the respective USD credit categories, whereas GBP industrials and EUR financials are trading in-line with USD credit.

To sum things up, when comparing USD, EUR and GBP IG credit, headline spreads are merely broad-brush indicators. To get a greater understanding of true relative value, it is worth analysing more granular data subsets to understand the underlying dynamics and the evolution of relative credit spread differences.

This entry was posted in credit and tagged , , , by . Bookmark the permalink.

Please note the content on this website is for Investment Professionals only and should be shared responsibly. No other persons should rely on the information contained within this website.

matt_russell_100

Technical support for Euro IG; around 4% of the market set to mature this month

Benjamin Franklin said that death and taxes were the only inevitabilities in life. I’d like to add the discussion of the January effect to his list. Every year I receive at least one piece of commentary telling me that January is always a good month for risk assets (we’re far from innocent ourselves – see here).

Basing investment decisions purely on seasonal anomalies isn’t a particularly reliable investment process and the sensible investor should take other, more robust information into account when making changes to their portfolio.

The improving economic outlook for Europe and the general lack of pessimism should help the European credit market rally this month. So too should the fact that about €64bn worth of investment grade bonds are set to have matured by the end of the month. I think it rather unlikely that we’ll see enough supply to offset the bonds that are maturing. J.P. Morgan recently publishing a research piece pointing out that gross European investment grade issuance has only ever been higher than €64bn a month on four occasions in the past, and all were prior to 2008.

2014-01 matt blog

J.P. Morgan also point out that January has been on average the month when most issuance takes place throughout the year. The primary market has been true to form since 2014 began but it will need to maintain the pace of the roughly €16bn that was issued in the first week of the year to give investors with maturing bonds somewhere to put their cash.

If net issuance turns out to be negative in January it will be a key technical support that could see Euro investment grade spreads continue to tighten further. It will also give us all another nice data point to talk about come next January.

Nicolo_Carpaneda-100

The year of the Snake – 2013 returns in fixed income markets

2013 has offered another injection of both adrenaline and performance to fixed income investors. A rapid sell-off shook emerging markets just before the summer while the Fed was conducting a “tapering yes/tapering no” ballet that lasted for more than six months. European peripheral countries finally came out of recession, although unemployment levels remain alarmingly high. In parallel, global high yield markets delivered further stellar performance, while Japan started to feel the effects of the unprecedented monetary and fiscal revolution driven by Shinzō Abe.

However, a common theme clearly emerged: the developed economies appear to be finally growing at a reasonable pace. Markets largely normalised as volatility and correlations returned to pre-crisis levels. While central bank intervention (set to continue for some time) has been the mantra in a liquidity driven environment, the world is transitioning back towards a growth based model. The US is well positioned to lead the pack, although high debt levels in Europe may continue to leave governments with limited room to support the recovery via fiscal stimulus. However, the good news here comes from a healing and deleveraging banking system, as well as rock solid support and a clear accommodative stance by the ECB and its leader Super Mario Draghi.

In this context, many fixed income asset classes offered satisfactory returns. Which assets have been top performers? The results are surprising. Who would have said, back in January 2013, that – together with a new Pope from Argentina, China landing on the moon and an economic bailout in Cyprus – Spanish “Bonos”  would have offered total returns in excess of 11% YTD, for example? Let’s take a closer look at government bonds, corporate bonds and major currencies compared to the US dollar (all total return YTD figures are measured from 31 December 2012 to 17 December 2013 in local currency).

Government bonds

Risk-free government bonds have been negatively affected by expectations over rising rates and tapering uncertainty. The UK gilts index – with an average duration of over 9 years – has been the most negatively hit, followed by US Treasuries (5+ years duration) and finally by less volatile German bunds (6+ years). It was a different story for some countries in the European periphery, where Greek government bonds offered tremendous total returns above 50%, followed by Spanish and Italian sovereign debt. Following the May debacle, emerging market government bonds in hard currency (measured by the commonly used JPM EMBI Index) took a significant hit and offered a negative return below 6%, despite a decent rebound after the summer, while the local currency index (JPM GBI-EM) looks set to end the year broadly flat (while once translated in USD, it is negative by around 8%)

Following 2012’s fall from grace for linkers, due to both falling inflation expectations and very low inflation in Europe and US, 2013 has continued to see the US, European and EM markets negatively affected while the UK market is about to close in a marginally positive territory thanks partly to the decision to maintain the link to RPI earlier this year (here’s a blog from Ben on the topic).

Looking back: government bonds

Corporate bonds

A great degree of value over the past year was to be found in corporate bonds. Companies are benefitting from the broad-based economic recovery around the developed world and from the subsequent increase in consumer demand (higher consumption = higher corporate revenues) and public investments. A conservative management of financial resources and balance sheets by bond issuers on average (especially in Europe), improving economic prospects, forward guidance on interest rates and a low inflation environment have all supported the ride of corporate bonds. Names active in the high yield space – especially in the US and Europe – have been amongst the standout performers within credit. Financials have also had a very strong run, especially in the subordinate space, helped by a healthy investor demand for higher yielding and more cyclical paper, as well as a general financial deleveraging process that is going in the right direction to restructure their balance sheets.

Performance highlights include European high yield (+9.9%), European subordinated financials and US high yield banking (+7.1% and +8.9% respectively) and an overall good showing from BBB non-financial corporates in Europe (+4.4%, to compare against -0.8% in the US). Emerging market corporate debt was in negative territory overall (-1.0%), while the high yield portion was marginally positive (+1.1%).

Looking back: corporate bonds

Currencies

The most noticeable development amongst major currencies has been a general lack of excitement around the US dollar from global investors, probably due to the ongoing tapering tantrum together with fears around the US fiscal cliff and the recent government shutdown. The USD index (DXY in Bloomberg) has generated a rather lacklustre  performance of +0.4% YTD. We need to make a clear distinction between two separate trends this year: the index generated positive returns for around 6% between January and early July, while it lost ground in the second part of the year (around -5.6%) due to uncertainties around the US government shutdown and Fed’s decision to maintain loose monetary policy. However, today the US economy is growing, its current account deficit is decreasing, the nation is moving towards energy independence, and Fed policy is now clearer following its tapering announcement on 18 December: we strongly believe that US dollar is good value and is set for a strong rebound.

Amongst G10 currencies, the Euro and GBP have gained significant value over the USD in recent months. Thanks to surprisingly strong economic developments in both the UK and the Eurozone, sterling and the euro have been amongst the best performing global currencies between March and December. Stay tuned on the British pound, because the UK’s 5.1% current account deficit in Q3 is the 3rd is the worst in UK history (and worse than Indonesia, India and Brazil). This suggests that there is no sign of the UK economy rebalancing and the UK’s economic recovery in its current form is nowhere near as sustainable as the US recovery.

The Japanese Yen has lost significant value (-15.4%) versus the US dollar due to the fresh efforts of the Bank of Japan to create inflation (and nominal growth) in the country. Some emerging market currencies offered strong performance, including the Argentine peso, Chinese Renminbi, Hungarian Forint, Polish Zloty, and Mexican peso, but the majority of EMFX has underperformed the US dollar, notably the Brazilian real, Indonesian Rupiah or South African rand, with the latter being the only currency to return less than the Yen at the time of writing.

Looking back: major currencies performance vs. USD

In conclusion, who would have expected such an interesting ride for fixed income asset classes this year? What is going to happen in 2014? Will next year be a negative or positive one for financial markets, and fixed income specifically? Read our latest Panoramic here and continue to stay tuned to this blog, explore recent posts (here from Ben, here from Mike and here from myself) and read more in the upcoming weeks.

Before saying goodbye, let me ask you something related to the Chinese calendar. The Year of the Snake, which began  on 10 February 2013, will be over at the end of January 2014. In the Chinese zodiac, the snake carries the meanings of cattiness and mystery, as well as acumen, divination and new beginnings. Do you see any fit with 2013? The new year of the Horse will start on 31 January 2014. The horse is considered energetic, bright, warm-hearted, intelligent and able. Any hint? Good luck and happy 2014!

gordon_harding_100

Panoramic: The effect of globalisation on corporate bond valuations

Corporate bonds have had an incredible run over the past few years. A combination of sub-par growth, the sovereign crisis in Europe and massive amounts of QE on a global scale has driven government bond yields down to historically low levels. At the same time, corporate bond spreads have tightened significantly from the crazy levels we saw in 2009. This has meant double-digit annualised returns from parts of the investment grade market (as you can see from the chart Richard posted yesterday), albeit with some spread volatility in ‘risk-off’ periods.

How do corporate bonds generate similar returns from here? Well, there’s no doubt it’s going to be difficult. Given the duration of the iBoxx £ Corporate index of just under 8 years, we’d need to see yields fall roughly 1% further. So, either 10 year gilt yields would have to rally to less than 1% (from today’s 1.7% level) with spreads staying broadly flat, or spreads would need to tighten significantly with gilt yields stable (or of course any other combination of gilt yield/credit spread moves equivalent to about a 1% fall in overall yield).

Focussing purely on the credit spread and using history as a guide, there certainly is room for further tightening – for example, the spread of the BofA Merrill Lynch BBB Sterling Corporate & Collateralised index was 292bps at the end of March, 191bps wider than the pre-crisis tight of 101bps at the end of May 2007. But what could be the catalyst for such a tightening of spreads?

In the latest version of our Panoramic series we look at what drives the relationship between corporate and government bond pricing, how this has been changing over time and what might ultimately lead to corporates trading at even tighter levels than before the financial crisis.

richard_woolnough_100

Old Lady sells her bonds

Back in 2009 the Bank of England (the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street) began buying a portfolio of investment grade bonds to provide funding to UK corporates, to aid liquidity in the corporate bond market and to supplement their QE purchases of gilts. Last Friday this investor sold its last corporate bonds.

This has been a great success from a profit point of view. The attached chart shows the total return of an index of non-financial corporate bonds over the period of the bank’s purchases and sales as well as an indication of their total holdings.

I believe its actions helped stabilise the corporate bond market in the UK by providing a backstop bid, therefore helping to reduce the cost of funding at the margin for issuers, and would have added to the effects of QE. However, empirically measuring these effects is hard to do – corporate bond markets that experienced no domestic support from their central banks appear to have performed similarly, and the debate on the true effectiveness of QE remains.

What is the primary lesson we have learned? I think it is that state intervention can work where markets are priced inefficiently. This is illustrated by the large profits the bank has made by buying an out of favour asset class from the private sector. It is probably a good base to have the state intervene where markets are inefficient, for example in areas such as healthcare, defence, law and order, and infrastructure. The danger comes when the state interferes to the detriment of an efficient market. From an economic point of view, aggressive trade barriers are the first thing that comes to mind where there would be a great deal of consensus from the left and right side of politics. Other actions may depend on your economic or political view. The best current example of this is the single European currency experiment. Does it aid a free market via price transparency and low transaction costs, or does it hinder efficiency by having one single interest rate and exchange rate for such diverse economies ?

The Old Lady’s portfolio of corporates has served her and the UK well because she bought them at cheap levels from distressed sellers. Unfortunately, this investor has a significantly bigger portfolio of gilts. The carry and mark to market on these looks great. However, turning this unrealised gain into a realised profit still remains a challenge. If she comes to sell, her position is likely to drive the market against her.

old lady blog chart

Page 1 of 3123