So far this year we’ve seen fixed income assets cheapening faster than at any time in over 40 years.
At the time of writing (10 May), the Global Aggregate fixed income benchmark has returned -12.1% year to date, with many underlying fixed income markets cheapening by more. Neither did duration-hedged asset classes prove to be the panacea to Federal Reserve policy tightening that many had claimed, with EUR investment grade excess returns (that is, performance versus governments) year to date of -3.25% and EUR high yield -5.78%. Evidently, monetary policy tightening cycles that are rapid, that are not expected by the consensus and moreover involve balance sheet tightening, are generally less supportive for spread products than periods of low interest rate volatility and quantitative easing. Government bonds, despite their historically negative performance, are therefore among the least worst-performing sectors across the fixed income landscape. Still, these things are all relative.
But has the historic amount of cheapening reinjected value yet? To get fixed income duration right over time, you have to be right on two factors: the secular regime and the (economic and monetary policy) cycle. Many investors who underestimated the secular regime became too short duration in the period 2010-2020, particularly in Europe. On the other hand, many that only focused on the benign secular regime since the early 1980s got caught being long duration in the 1994 and 1999 hiking cycles. Both clearly matter.
Today, there are well-articulated divergent views in the marketplace on the secular question, and the outcome of the debate is far from settled: will the demographic factors and internationalized capital flows prevalent in the past few decades since the 1980s continue to offer a benign tail wind? Or might we be entering a more challenging inflation regime akin to the path from 1965-1981? With bond yields close to the top of their 40-year downward-trending channel – and close to the 2018 yield peaks of last cycle – the question is pertinent, but it may pay to keep an open mind. For the second question, on the cyclical outlook, we think the answer is starting to become clearer.
As Larry Summers and Alex Domash have argued, the chance of a recession over the next two years is arguably closer to likely than unlikely, given initial conditions of late-cycle unemployment (now at 3.6%) and the highest headline CPI in over forty years (currently running at 8.5%). This combination is usually hazardous for economic expansions over a two-year horizon, because of the inflationary pressure more often associated with very low unemployment rate environments, and the monetary policy tightening required given high inflation. As Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz wrote in 1963, it is Federal Reserve tightening that typically ends US economic cycles. In the sixty years since, that hasn’t materially changed. Indeed, the Bank of England seems to side with Summers and Domash on their recent negative growth forecast for 2023.
A substantial number of hikes are now priced into the front ends of many global government bond curves. Some markets have nearly 250 bps priced in, if we include hikes just delivered (the US, Australia, New Zealand and Hungary for instance), some over 150 to 200 bps (South Korea, Norway, Sweden and even the Eurozone). The inclusion of the latter on this list is remarkable, given the ECB have not managed to hike rates once since 2011, and they are still not yet finished wrapping up quantitative easing.
With a substantial amount priced in, the million-dollar question (or the USD 63 trillion one, given that is the size of the Global Aggregate benchmark) is: at what point do higher borrowing costs create maximum pain for the economy? After all, if Summers and Domash are right, a recession by the end of 2024 needs to be considered. Caveats related to the uncertainty of secular regimes aside, we are focused on four factors:
On the first, with the US 2s10s nominal spot curve having briefly inverted in early April, our analysis shows that 2-year yields are much more likely than not to end up below their 12-month forwards in one year’s time. In other words, a curve inversion is a medium to longer-term signal to buy the front end. A word of caution: inversions can be deeper and more persistent in periods of high inflation, as the 1970s showed, so there can be a cost to being too early.
Second, while inflation has continued to surprise the consensus by peaking later than forecast, and at higher levels, base effects suggest some moderation into the second half of this year, at least in the US. If the base effects overpower the evident upside pressures of wages and second-round effects, this metric suggests a potential yield peak some time this summer.
Third, most developed economies have become even more indebted in recent years. In 1970, US household and corporate debt each totaled around 45% of GDP. Today they are each around 80% of GDP. Government debt was also just below 40% of GDP in 1970 – it has now tripled to 120%! This matters for the calculus of when Federal Reserve hiking cycles come to an end, because the amount of interest-bearing debt that requires servicing is now substantially higher. In other words, the interest rate intensity of the economy has gone up. All else equal, that means the terminal rate will be substantially lower, given the higher level of debt.
Finally, as a rule of thumb, US bond yields tend to peak close to the second-to-last rate hike each cycle. Of course we only know when the second-last hike occurs after we’ve had the last one, and after the pause or first cuts that then follow! The ex ante uncertainty clouds the current view, but the interplay of the growth outlook with any progress on the inflation front, is likely to be key.
Because timing turns can be hazardous, in the meantime cross-market trades offer better risk-adjusted opportunities in our view. Markets where central banks have already tightened significantly relative to terminal rates in prior cycles, and have already inverted their forward (and in some cases their spot) curves, have less scope to sell off at the front end. For yield curve strategy, while it still looks too early to put on steepeners in many markets, the first step to getting there is to take profits on flatteners.
So as questions over the market cycle suggest a turn at an indeterminate time in due course, there’s alpha to be made in the meantime. After all, it’s all relative.
The contents of this document have not been reviewed by any regulatory authority in Hong Kong. If you are in any doubt about any of the contents of this document, you should obtain independent professional advice. This document has been distributed by Robeco Hong Kong Limited (‘Robeco’). Robeco is regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission in Hong Kong.
This document has been prepared on a confidential basis solely for the recipient and is for information purposes only. Any reproduction or distribution of this documentation, in whole or in part, or the disclosure of its contents, without the prior written consent of Robeco, is prohibited. By accepting this documentation, the recipient agrees to the foregoing
This document is intended to provide the reader with information on Robeco’s specific capabilities, but does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell certain securities or investment products. Investment decisions should only be based on the relevant prospectus and on thorough financial, fiscal and legal advice.
The contents of this document are based upon sources of information believed to be reliable. This document is not intended for distribution to or use by any person or entity in any jurisdiction or country where such distribution or use would be contrary to local law or regulation.
Investment Involves risks. Historical returns are provided for illustrative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect Robeco’s expectations for the future. The value of your investments may fluctuate. Past performance is no indication of current or future performance.
此網站由Robeco Hong Kong Limited（「荷寶」）擬備及刊發，荷寶是獲香港證券及期貨事務監察委員會發牌從事第1類（證券交易）、第4類（就證券提供意見）及第9類（資產管理）受規管活動的企業。荷寶不持有客戶資產,並受到發牌條件所規限。荷寶在擴展至零售業務之前,必須先得到證監會的批准。本網頁未經證券及期貨事務監察委員會或香港的任何監管當局審閱。
Robeco Capital Growth Funds以其特定的投資政策或其他特徵作識別，請小心閱讀有關Robeco Capital Growth Funds的風險：
荷寶保證將會根據現行的資料保障法例，以保密方式處理登入此網站的人士的數據。除非荷寶需按法律責任行事，否則在未經登入此網站的人士許可，不會向第三方提供該等數據。 請於我們的私隱及Cookie政策 中查找更多詳情。