Macro and Credit - The Money Illusion

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." -  Daniel J. Boorstin, American historian

Looking at the most recent print in US nonfarm payrolls in conjunction with stronger than expected 2.9% wage growth (AHE) in August, with US Annual core-CPI declining to 2.2% in August vs 2.4% expected, leading to a tentative rebound in gold prices, when it came to selecting our title analogy we decided to steer towards a reference to the seminal work done by Irving Fisher in 1928 in his book "The Money Illusion". In economics, the money illusion is also referred as price illusion. It is the tendency for people to think of currency in nominal, rather than real terms. In other words, the numerical/face value (nominal value) of money is mistaken for its purchasing power (real value) at a previous point in the general price level (in the past). The term "Money Illusion" was coined by maverick economist Irving Fisher in his book "Stabilizing the Dollar" though it was popularized by John Maynard Keynes in the early twentieth century. Irving Fisher was the first economist to produce what is now called "The Fisher equation" in financial mathematics and economics which estimates the relationship between nominal and real interest rates under inflation. The existence of money illusion is disputed by monetary economists who contend that people act rationally (i.e. think in real prices) with regard to their wealth. Eldar Shafir, Peter A. Diamond, and Amos Tversky (1997) have provided empirical evidence for the existence of the effect and it has been shown to affect behaviour in a variety of experimental and real-world situations in three main ways:

• Price stickiness. Money illusion has been proposed as one reason why nominal prices are slow to change even where inflation has caused real prices or costs to rise.
• Contracts and laws are not indexed to inflation as frequently as one would rationally expect.
• Social discourse, in formal media and more generally, reflects some confusion about real and nominal value.

Apparently "The Money Illusion" influences people's perceptions of outcomes. Experiments were conducted and have shown that people generally perceive an approximate 2% cut in nominal income with no change in monetary value as being unfair, but do see a 2% rise in nominal income as fair where there is 4% inflation, despite them being almost rational equivalents. This result is consistent with the "Myopic Loss Aversion theory" but this will probably be an interesting title for another post. The "Money Illusion" is indeed a cognitive bias which can vary depending on the "inflationary/deflationary" context. Numerous studies have documented a negative correlation between nominal yields and inflation. Modigliani and Cohn (1979) assumes that the valuations of the assets differ from their fundamental values because of two inflation-induced errors in judgment: the tendency to capitalise equity earnings at the nominal rate instead of at the real rate, and the inability to understand that, over time, the debts will devalue in real terms. What does it means? Simply that stock prices are overvalued during periods of low inflation. If indeed inflation accelerates, this will lead to some "repricing" and some reversion to the mean. For a bear market to ensue as we have repeated on numerous occasions on this very blog, you need inflation to "accelerate". Past history has shown, what matters is the "velocity" of the increase in the oil prices, given that a price appreciation greater than 100% to the "Real Price of Oil" has been a leading indicator for every US recession over the past 40 years. So, if QE could be seen as "deflationary" then QT could be seen as "inflationary". If the "money illusion" is "fading" and real wages starts accelerating, then the Fed will have no other choice but to pursue a more aggressive hiking pace. Of course if "inflation" is accelerating in conjunction with real wages, then again this will trigger "Bracket creep" being the process by which inflation pushes wages and salaries into higher tax brackets, leading to a fiscal drag situation for those who remember our post from January this year:

"Most progressive tax systems are not adjusted for inflation, as wages and salaries rise in nominal terms under the influence of inflation they become more highly taxed, even though in real terms the value of the wages and salaries has not increased at all. The net effect overall is that in real terms taxes rise unless the tax rates or brackets are adjusted to compensate. That simple." - source Macronomics, January 2018

Yet another illustration of the existence of the "Money illusion" we think but we ramble again...

In this week's conversation, we would like to look at rising inflation creating therefore a shift in the "Money illusion" and what it entails down the line from a liquidity perspective.

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - The Money illusion is fading
• Final charts - Always remember that liquidity is a coward

• Macro - The Money illusion is fading

As we indicated back in June 2015 in our conversation "The Third Punic War", bear markets for US equities generally coincide with a significant tick up in core inflation. Also in our January conversation "Bracket creep" we indicated the following:

"As pointed out by Christopher Cole from Artemis Capital in his must read note "Volatility and the Alchemy of Risk - Reflexivity in the Shadows of Black Monday 1987",  the rise of the Big Bad Wolf aka inflation was what started a liquidity fire in credit that spread to equities before the 1987 volatility explosion described. But flow wise, as we have pointed out in numerous conversations, the money is flowing "uphill" where all the "fun" is namely the bond market, not "downhill" to the "real economy" so far." - source Macronomics, January 2018

While the latest inflation figure for August is considered as a miss, the Fed has most recently appeared much more hawkish it seems. The big question therefore should be about the strength of inflation. Subdued real wage growth could be one of the reasons put forward for the surprise election of Donald Trump in the United States. The election could be marking a return of Main Street versus Wall Street which has experienced tremendous asset inflations thanks to low volatility and low "perceived" inflation. Yet it seems to us from a "macro" perspective that, indeed the "Money Illusion" is now fading on the back of "QT". 

Is inflation returning? On that subject we read with interest Wells Fargo Economics note from the 12th of September entitled "Inflation not as benign as first indicated by drop in PPI":

"Producer prices came in softer than expected in August, falling 0.1%. The miss stemmed largely from the volatile trade-services sector, which measures margins. The underlying trend in inflation continues to inch higher.

At the Margin

• PPI inflation unexpectedly slipped 0.1% in August. Goods prices were flat, but the miss came in large part from services, specifically a 0.9% drop in the volatile trade-services sector, which measures margins, not selling prices. Declining margins at machinery and equipment firms accounted for 80% of the decline in services this month and suggest producers may be struggling to pass on rising input costs related to recent tariffs.

Core Inflation Continues to Gradually Climb

• Our preferred measure of core inflation, which excludes food, energy and trade services, also came in a bit softer than expected –up 0.1%— as transportation & warehousing prices fell. The trend remains upward, however, with the “core-core” measure climbing to 2.9% over the past 12 months versus 1.9% the 12 months prior.
• Input prices eased a bit in August, but are still running ahead of final prices. Pressure on margins therefore looks to continue.

- source Wells Fargo

Additional escalation in the trade war would as we pointed out in various conversations put additional pressure on inflationary trends and on the US consumer we think. The question on everyone's mind is how are we shifting into a new inflationary state meaning that the "Money illusion" is finally fading?

On this subject we read with interest Bank of America Merrill Lynch's take from their Inflation Strategist note from the 13th of September entitled "Signs of life":

"The old normal shows signs of life

• Globalisation delivers a fall in price level masquerading as deflation. Both secular and cyclical deflation forces are fading.
• We update our long list of determinants of the low real rate era. Bernanke's "global savings glut" obviously has a place.

The three big picture inflation supports

Cyclical, secular and survivorship

We can be critical of the different ways output gaps are calculated, the numbers themselves and their usefulness as a single measure for encapsulating spare capacity in economies. Nevertheless, the reduction/elimination of slack that they signal, apart from being encouraging in its own right, should help towards resolving the question over how much of the “lowflation” experienced has been cyclical and how much secular.

Even when it comes to secular, long term trends, these shouldn’t necessarily be misconstrued as meaning a permanent shift to a new inflationary state. Whether it be the deflationary influence of globalization or the internet, to the extent that this means greater competition (so reduced pricing power), then it does perhaps reduce inflationary potential “permanently”.

However, in a shift from closed economies to open economies (globalization) or from weaker price discovery to stronger price discovery (the internet), a large part of the impact on prices is a one-off adjustment in the level not a permanent reduction in the inflation rate. It just looks like the latter because it doesn’t happen all at once. Inflation should firm if the pace of globalization slows.

Chart 2 suggests globalization is at least experiencing a pause. It shows the extraordinary shift in the openness of the global economy since the 60s but a leveling off in the trade share of GDP in recent years. And, as Governor Carney of the BoE has warned, “deglobalization” (an ugly word for an ugly concept) would threaten a meaningful build-up of inflation pressures.

Perhaps the last line of defense for inflation, as measured, is “survivorship bias”. If economies open up to trade with each other, production gravitates to their respective comparative advantages and (in principle) output is boosted and prices fall. In advanced economies, we have become used to falling goods prices. But, as Chart 3 illustrates simply, if goods prices fall and services prices rise steadily over time, then the overall inflation rate will rise because the index weighting for goods will fall, unless the relative price change prompts a consumption shift from services to goods.

Whether it be this “survivorship bias” or the tendency of economies to consume proportionately more services as they advance (and as their populations age), Chart 4 shows the mild but meaningful shift from goods to services in CPI baskets. 

We suggest that perceptions of r*, the neutral real policy rate consistent with growth at trend and inflation at target, have been framed by the experience of a prolonged period of economic slack and an even longer period of globalization. The impacts of both on inflation are probably fading and the real policy rate required to keep inflation pressures in check will likely rise gradually to a considerably higher level than currently priced.

Real rate drivers - the usual suspects

It is worth periodically rounding up the “usual suspects” cited as causes of the low real rate world we have been in. Here we list suggestions from a variety of sources and throw in a few of our own. We do not claim that it is exhaustive and readers would no doubt add and subtract from what we have below.

Thinking in terms of potential longer-dated real rates drivers – those shifting the supply and demand for savings and investment – it is perhaps useful to split them into those drivers that might have shifted the savings curve and those that might have shifted the investments curve.

Most items we list are self-explanatory and we do not want to go over well-trodden ground in a lot of detail before getting to our main contentions. However, some of the drivers we identify should actually be broken-down into arrays of sub-drivers. In particular, we suggest that there are many facets to the apparent change in capital/labour preference that has subdued capital investment, so we carve out a sublist for that driver.

Causes of investment curve shift to the left?

• The long shadow of the crisis – reduced expected real returns, greater uncertainty over those expected returns or greater risk aversion to that uncertainty
• A decline in innovation, reducing opportunities
• The cost of equity capital has fallen, but nothing like as much as the risk free rate.
• Falling prices of investment goods (and inelastic demand).
• Capital/labour substitution – replacing the former with the latter.

Causes of savings curve shift to the right?

• The “Global Savings Glut” (GSG), especially imported savings from reserve accumulators.
• Demographics – a falling dependency ratio. Workers can save more because they are supporting fewer dependents.
• Precautionary savings accumulated because of crisis.
• Rising inequality raising the average propensity to save."  - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

We would like to add a couple of comments to the above  relating to the GSG theory put forward by former Fed president Ben Bernanke relating the reasons for the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). Once again we would like to quote our February 2016 conversation "The disappearance of MS München" on this subject:

"The "Savings Glut" view of economists such as Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman needs to be vigorously rebuked. This incorrect view which was put forward to attempt to explain the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) by the main culprits was challenged by economists at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), particularly in one paper by Claudio Borio entitled "The financial cycle and macroeconomics: What have we learnt?": 
"The core objection to this view is that it arguably conflates “financing” with “saving” –two notions that coincide only in non-monetary economies. Financing is a gross cash-flow concept, and denotes access to purchasing power in the form of an accepted settlement medium (money), including through borrowing. Saving, as defined in the national accounts, is simply income (output) not consumed. Expenditures require financing, not saving. The expression “wall of saving” is, in fact, misleading: saving is more like a “hole” in aggregate expenditures – the hole that makes room for investment to take place. … In fact, the link between saving and credit is very loose. For instance, we saw earlier that during financial booms the credit-to-GDP gap tends to rise substantially. This means that the net change in the credit stock exceeds income by a considerable margin, and hence saving by an even larger one, as saving is only a small portion of that income." - source BIS paper, December 2012

Their paper argues that it was unrestrained extensions of credit and the related creation of money that caused the problem which could have been avoided if interest rates had not been set too low for too long through a "wicksellian" approach dear to Charles Gave from Gavekal Research.

Borio claims that the problem was that bank regulators did nothing to control the credit booms in the financial sector, which they could have done. We know how that ended before." - source Macronomics, February 2016

Indeed, conflating financing and savings is the main issue when it comes to the GSG theory. From a "Wicksellian" perspective, one would argue that low rates for too long leads to mis-allocation of capital. For instance if one looks at CAPEX expenditures in US High Yield since 1997, one can see in the chart below from Bank of America Merrill Lynch that prior to the onset of the GFC, capital raised through bond issuance went into more leverage thanks to a buying spree with Acquisitions/LBOs. Of course a feature of a late credit cycle does lead to seeing more LBOs and acquisitions:

- graphs source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

As we pointed out in our October 2017 long conversation relating  to inflation entitled "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?", we had over-inflation of asset prices and too low inflation thanks to the "Money Illusion". The Fed, subdued inflation expectations and inflation with its various QE iterations. We indicated at the time:

"Credit cycles die because too much debt has been raised

When it comes to credit and in particular the credit cycle, the growth of private credit matters a lot. If indeed there are signs that the US consumer is getting "maxed out", then there is a chance the credit cycle will turn in earnest, because of too much debt being raised as well for the US consumer. But for now financial conditions are still fairly loose. For the credit music to stop, a return of the Big Bad Wolf aka inflation would end the rally still going strong towards eleven in true Spinal Tap fashion" - source Macronomics, October 2017

Financial conditions remain very loose and with the fiscal boost coming from the Trump administration, no wonder the Fed is becoming more hawkish. You have been warned. 

But returning to real rate drivers, Bank of America Merrill Lynch in their note highlight what has mattered most for the "Money illusion" to take place:

"What has mattered most?

Over the past ten years, bond market participants would almost certainly cite risk-free bond buying by central bank reserve accumulators and the duration extinguished by quantitative easing, mitigating the impact of heavy government bond supply as the crisis lifted debt/GDP levels.

However, real rates were already in long-term decline well before the crisis. Taking a longer time frame, a Bank of England Working Paper by Lukasz Rachel and Thomas D. Smith (No. 571, “Secular drivers of the global real interest rate”, December 2015) claimed to be able to account for 400 of the 450 basis point fall in long term real interest rates over the preceding thirty years.

Exhibit 1, clipped from their paper, suggests that the global savings glut has only had a small walk-on part in the unfolding real rate drama.

In their analysis, the big four drivers were: lower growth, demographics, an increase in the spreads between risk-free real rates and the real rates experienced in the real economy (including, for instance, the real cost of equity finance), and the falling relative price of capital. For this last to be a driver of lower real rates one must assume that demand for capital goods is price-inelastic.

They concluded that: “most of these forces look set to persist and some may even build further. This suggests that the global neutral rate may remain low and perhaps settle at (or slightly below) 1% in the medium to long run.” In their forecasts, they see demographics delivering most of this increase, as the Exhibit shows. Chart 6 shows how this relates to an end to the downtrend in the world dependency ratio, with upswings well underway in advanced economies.

Later, we will discuss the interaction between risk-aversion, driving the “spreads” component in the Exhibit, and the global savings glut, in order to contend that this can be a force for a bigger upward adjustment in real rates in the future.

The replacement of capital with labour has many aspects

As before, we will list what we see as potential causes of this phenomenon, rather than discuss them in any detail. They should be self-explanatory. We would also stress that the ordering should not be regarded as signalling an attempt to rank them in order of importance.

Drivers of the trend shift from capital to labour

• Increasing labour market flexibility
• A global “labour supply glut”, resulting from:

o A falling dependency ratio
o Globalisation
o A post-crisis workforce that needed to re-skill and price itself back
into work

• A change in firms’ perceived capital-labour risk/cost efficient frontier since the crisis
• Capital intensive goods production has been driven out of advanced economies (their comparative advantage being in services)
• Production reflects consumption. Advanced economies consume fewer goods and more (labour intensive) services
• As a result of the above, the modern advanced economy business is capital-light

Ben Bernanke memorably used the term “global savings glut” to describe excess savings circling the world in pursuit of a return. Admittedly, the world saving rate was a little higher in 2005 (when he coined the term) than now but the overall increase in the world savings rate over time has not been great, while that for the OECD has seen a gentle decline.

The glut that is generally understood to have exerted downward pressure on nominal and real yields refers to the savings recycled from surplus countries to deficit countries as large current account imbalances emerged.

However, there are reasons to be a little uncomfortable with that seemingly axiomatic received wisdom without further elaboration. To the extent that current account surpluses represent the excess savings of countries, there are equal and opposite savings shortfalls in current account deficit countries (notably the US and UK).

Conventional wisdom used to have it that countries with persistent current account deficits needed to pay higher prospective returns to attract and retain foreign capital. Investors have a natural preference for domestic assets, so need to be paid a premium for accepting foreign market risk. Therefore, without any change in global saving, an increase in imbalances would be expected to depress real yields in surplus economies but raise them in economies with savings shortfalls.

Conventional wisdom upended

If the above framework is accepted, then a mild increase in the global saving rate accompanied by the development of large global imbalances would have exerted a downward “income effect” on real yields but an upward “substitution effect” on real yields in economies on the negative side of the global imbalances identity. The net impact on real yields in the US (with the greatest need for imported savings) would have been ambiguous. What has upended this logic has been the change in the risk preferences of the exporters of savings.

When an economy is “self-sufficient” in savings, domestic savers have diverse risk appetites; they invest across the risk spectrum. And when an economy does have a savings shortfall but is financed by foreign private capital, risk appetite also tends to be diverse (FDI, equity portfolio acquisition, etc). Up until the late 90s, this was the norm.

So our contention is that the rise of the reserve accumulators, in pursuit of risk-free government paper, crowded-out risk appetite. The substitution effect became one of increasing risk-free investment appetite surpluses and risk-taking appetite shortfalls. Therefore the nature and sign of the substitution changed.

Chart 9 shows the IMF’s presentation of these global imbalances.

In Chart 10, we regroup and simplify the picture. By unifying European creditors and debtors (which appear above and below the zero line in the IMF layout) we change the outline of the picture a bit.

However, the main thing highlighted by Chart 10 is the surplus share recorded by China and the oil exporters up until the last few years. It’s a major oversimplification, obviously, but these are perhaps the most conspicuous reserve accumulators pursuing risk-free external assets.

But that era appears to be over, insofar as we accept IMF forecasts for the development of imbalances. The present and near future of imbalances looks simpler than the past – Europe will be financing the US.

The flows will be private capital, not public reserves, so have the potential to restore the old regime where a US savings shortfall delivers higher not lower risk-free real rates. This also suggests that even though the spread between US and Euro real rates has widened significantly, there’s more to come.

Was the equity risk premium a casualty of this risk appetite shift?

The BoE working paper discussed earlier discussed widening “spreads” as an important driver of low real rates. No doubt the crisis was a major contributor to a gapping wider in the equity risk premium and a shifting preference towards government bonds will reflect other things, like the aging of the average saver. However, we would suggest that if global imbalances have extinguished risk appetite in the way we have described, then this also played a big part in the late-90s bond-equity “correlation flip” shown in Chart 11 and the widening gap between bond and equity earnings yields.

In this context, the post-millennium US experience of debt-financed equity buybacks (widely pilloried as “short-termism” and “financial alchemy” looks, more objectively, to be a rational response to a dramatic increase in the relative cost of equity finance. It’s been about giving investors what they want.

New normal looking more like old normal than we thought

In this note we have discussed very big picture influences that are likely evolving very slowly. However, the underlying messages seem clear. A closing of the global output gap appears to be coinciding with a waning in the deflationary influence of globalisation, resulting in firming global inflation, or at least a higher r* to keep inflation in check. This would be aggravated if globalisation is actually in retreat.

That a global savings glut depressed risk-free real rates is universally accepted but perhaps the bigger global real yield depressant from global imbalances was the extinguishing of risk appetite – “bad” savings driving out “good” savings. The global imbalances are still with us but the composition is changing in a way that should restore risk appetite and lift US real yields, both outright and (especially) relative to European." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

We disagree on the above a GSG was not the reason risk-free rates were depressed, no offense to Bank of America Merrill Lynch but we would rather side with the wise wizards at the BIS than with the reckless wizards such as Ben Bernanke at the Fed and others.

Before we move on to our final charts regarding the "liquidity illusion", we would like to quote the wise words of Irving Fisher from his 1928 book:

"We may now summarize our findings
1. The problem of what to do about our unstable money is one of prime importance
2. It has been all but overlooked because of the Money Illusion
3. This Illusion is the more serious because every man finds it harder to free his mind of this Illusion as to the money of his own country than of foreign money.
4. This Money Illusion so distorts our view that commodities may seem to be rising or falling when they are substantially stationary, wages may seem to be rising when they are really falling, profits may seem to exist when they are really losses, interest may be believed to be rewarding thrift when no real interest exists, income may seem to be steady when it is unsteady, bond investments may seem to be safe when they are merely a speculation in gold. It makes a unit of weight appear to be a unit of value; it hides a chief cause of the so-called business cycle; it has enabled political financiers to employ unsound finance with burdens heavier but with complaints less than if sound finance had been employed; it has led to unjust blame of "profiteers" and of the "money lenders"; and above all it has held back stabilization by concealing the need of it.
5. The present fixity of weight of our dollar is a very poor substitute for a fixity of value or buying power.
6. By actual index number measurement our dollar rose nearly four fold and fell back to the starting point again between 1865 and 1920.
7. Most of the dollar's fluctuations were while the dollar was a gold dollar (1879-1922).
8. They were largely peace time fluctuations; most of them occurred while America was at peace (1879-1898, 1899-1917, and 1918-1922), and much of them when there were no important wars elsewhere (1879-1914 and 1918-1922).
9. These fluctuations through serious shrink into insignificance in comparison with the thousand-fold, million fold, billion-fold, and trillion-fold fluctuations in Europe.
10. The cause of a falling or rising dollar is monetary inflation or deflation and that , in practice, it is seldom or never necessary to specify that the inflation or deflation is merely relative since it is also absolute as well.
11. To go back to the cause of inflation or deflation, the extreme variability of money is chiefly man-made, due to governmental finance, especially war finance, as well as to banking policies and legislation; but also due in part to discoveries or exhaustion in gold mines, and changes in metallurgical art.
12. The tremendous fluctuations of money produce tremendous harm analogous to what would result if our physical yardstick were constantly stretching and shrinking but far greater

• a. because the money yardstick is used so much more generally
• b. because it is so much more used in time contracts, because stretching and shrinking are unseen.

13. This harm includes a constant robbery of Peter to pay Paul - amounting to sixty billion dollars in six years in the United States alone - a net loss to all Peters and Pauls taken together, confusion and uncertainty in all financial, commercial and industrial relations, constituting much what is called the business cycle, producing depression, bankruptcy, unemployment, labor discontent, strikes, lockouts, class feeling, perverted legislation, Bolshevism and violence. In short the harm is threefold: social injustice, discontent and inefficiency." - source Irving Fisher, The Money Illusion.

He also added that credit control must always be an important part of any program for stabilization. This is leading us to our final charts relating to the "liquidity illusion" in credit markets.

• Final charts - Always remember that liquidity is a coward

As a reminder, a liquidity crisis always lead to a financial crisis. That simple, unfortunately. In our February 2016 conversation "The disappearance of MS München" on this subject we quoted Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis from their 2008 book Credit Crises:

"Asset price inflation in general, is not a phenomenon which is limited to one specific market but rather has a global impact. However, there are some specific developments in certain segments of the market, as specific segments are more vulnerable against overshooting than others. Therefore, a strong decline in asset prices effects on all risky asset classes due to the reduction of liquidity.
This is a very important finding, as it explains the mechanism behind a global crisis. Spillover effects are liquidity-driven and liquidity is a global phenomenon. Against the background of the ongoing integration of the financial markets, spillover effects are inescapable, even in the case there is no fundamental link between specific market segments. How can we explain decoupling between asset classes during financial crises? During the subprime turmoil in 2007, equity markets held up pretty well, although credit markets go hit hard." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

Our final charts come from Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Credit Market Liquidity report from the 12th of September and highlights the "buy-side" versus the "sell-side" imbalance after the GFC and seems to be on every credit investors mind these days, rightly so:

"The ECB has been tapering its QE programme, and asset purchases will finish by the end of this year. Credit market liquidity is becoming more challenging with market participants seeing fewer bids when they need them. We think that when bond market liquidity becomes more challenging, the CDS market is the vehicle to manage risk. Bond trading frequencies have slowed down over the past years; trading volumes in the CDS market are rising rapidly, both in the index and the options market.
The “buy-side” vs. “sell-side” imbalance is the largest it has ever been. In a world of growing buy-side assets but lower street liquidity, sharp corrections are more common. Dealer inventories of corporate bonds are clearly way down on where they were in ’07, but banks also appear more nimble in managing their mark-to-market risks and overall exposures on their securities portfolios.

The CSPP has dominated the European credit market in recent years. The ECB has bought more than €167bn of euro-denominated corporate debt (and this is still growing, albeit slowly). The CSPP has been pivotal in improving the credit market’s strength and resilience. But we can see a shift in market liquidity for the worst in recent months amid rising markets volatility.

Liquidity has been challenging according to the findings of our analysis, and credit investors seem to think that it will deteriorate as the buyer of last resort withdraws and they will be the only buyers left in the market (chart 3).

With inflows drying up and possibly continuing to do so as the rates cycle between US and Europe pushes money out of the latter, liquidity will likely become more challenging (more here).

The trend of selling in secondary to participate on primary is the new norm as inflows have stopped. If macro deteriorates further and investors need to replenish their cash balances to cover weaker fund flows technicals, the bid for bonds would weaken more, we think. No wonder that the key concern for credit investors is that “market liquidity evaporates”; the August 2018 survey reading was the highest since H2 2015 heading into the February 2016 sell-off and amid HY market weakness (on the back of a flare-up in the Greek debt saga, EM risks and oil prices tanking).

Our liquidity indicator at the most distressed levels

Arguably it is difficult to quantify liquidity. So many metrics (bid/offer, turnover, volumes and trade counts), but none of these have the ability to measure “illiquidity aversion” and to what extent risk-aversion has dominated the market. We think the volatility market is providing unique and eye opening insight on the current state of the “illiquidity scare” for market participants.

In our Hold your breath for a bumpy ride note, we highlighted an interesting and rather unique phenomenon that recently emerged in the European credit index options market. Amid significant volatility during the Italian BTP sell-off, we have seen an increase in hedging demand. As a result implied vols have moved well above the levels justified by the underlying spread market. But not only that, as not only have vols underperformed (moved more than) the underlying market, but implied vol skews were heavily bid too, steepening to the highest levels we have seen historically (chart 4).

We think we could gain significant insight on risk aversion from examining the correlation between the forward moves of the implied vol skew (payer vs. receiver implied vol differential) vs. the preceded moves in the underlying implied vol market. In simple terms, the higher the correlation the stronger the need for tail hedging going forward post a vol shock in credit. Currently we find that the level of positive correlation (steepening of implied vol skew, post a rise in implied vols) is the highest we have ever seen, according to our data.

In our opinion this clearly reflects the high levels of risk aversion and illiquidity fear during the recent sell-off. It seems that investors hit the “panic” button harder than at any other time in history. A continuation of outflows, a weak macro and declining market liquidity could ultimately push too many investors to the exit." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

It seems that some credit investors are getting wary about the "liquidity illusion" in credit markets and some are already lining up for the exit as no one wants to really pick up the tab of the very large credit punch bowl offered by our "generous gamblers" aka our dear central bankers but we ramble again as we are not there yet and equities continue to surge oblivious to the on-going shift in the "Money Illusion". Oh well...

 “Liquidity is a backward-looking yardstick. If anything, it’s an indicator of potential risk, because in “liquid” markets traders forego trying to determine an asset’s underlying worth – - they trust, instead, on their supposed ability to exit.” - Roger Lowenstein, author of “When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management.” – “Corzine Forgot Lessons of Long-Term Capital“

Stay tuned ! 

Macro and Credit - The Zimmermann Telegram

"No matter what political reasons are given for war, the underlying reason is always economic." - A. J. P. Taylor, British historian

Looking at the evolution of the trade war rhetoric in conjunction with cold war 2.0 heating up following the events in London as of late, as well as the weakness in risky asset prices and issues surrounding FANG stocks darling Facebook, when it came to selecting our title analogy we reacquainted ourselves with the "Zimmerman Telegram". The Zimmermann Telegram was a secret diplomatic communication issued from the German Foreign Office in January 1917 that proposed a military alliance between Germany and Mexico in the prior event of the United States entering World War I against Germany. Mexico would recover Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. The proposal was intercepted and decoded by British intelligence. Revelation of the contents enraged American public opinion, especially after the German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann publicly admitted the telegram was genuine on March 3rd 1917, and helped generate support for the United States declaration of war on Germany in April 1917. The decryption was described as the most significant intelligence triumph for Britain during World War I, and one of the earliest occasions on which a piece of signals intelligence influenced world events. One could indeed make a parallel and wonder if the latest disclosure on privacy issues relating to Facebook will not mark a turning point for the strong winners (FANG stocks) of the rally seen in recent years in equities.

In this week's conversation, we would like to look at the US dollar funding pressure which has been highlighted by many pundits particularly given that the Libor-OIS spread, has more than doubled since the end of January to 55 basis points, a level unseen since 2009 reflecting an increasing scarcity of dollar funding it seems with large implications as per the below Bloomberg charts as well as US corporate leverage:

- source Bloomberg

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - Libor and leverage, my dear Watson...
• Final charts - Dispersion matters 

• Macro and Credit - Libor and leverage, my dear Watson...

No doubt the returns on everything beta including the Russell 2000 since Trump's election in the US has been stellar but, we are seeing it seems a change in the narrative since early 2018 with the continuous hiking pattern of the Fed, making markets more prone to heightened volatility and questioning the continuation of the "goldilocks environment" which had prevailed so far in credit markets. One most sensitive candidate we think for a "short" bias when the markets will eventually turn in the footsteps of the Fed's hiking course that will in the end "break something" is the Russell 2000 small cap index we think. Given that more than 40 percent of debt issued by Russell 2000 companies is floating, they are therefore susceptible to the rise in the benchmark rate namely our old friend Libor. While the CFOs of some of these firms have made good use of derivatives to effectively swap from floating-rate into fixed obligations, these companies are still more interest-rate sensitive than their larger counterparts that have embarked on a bond-issuance frenzy in recent years particularly so with a significant amount of leverage. At the end of 2017 around 34% of the Russell 2000 was made up of loss-making companies with an average LT debt to Capital of around 35% versus 29% in 2007. In our book higher leverage and rising Libor even if some smart CFOs have swapped some exposure from floating to fixed doesn't look too promising when the market will finally turn to a bearish stance (we are not quite there yet).

On the pressing subject of Libor and OIS rates, we read with interest UBS Global Macro Strategy note from the 2nd of March entitled "USD Funding Pressures: Myth and Reality:

"Here's what's happening

Some investors are worried about the rising gap between LIBOR and OIS rates (Figure 1) as being indicative of a nascent funding problem.

At the root of this widening is an increase in T-bill rates; as Fed funds and T-bill yields rise, so does the cost of unsecured LIBOR funding. The gap between T-bills and LIBOR rates, the Ted spread, has not changed much. Bill rates have been rising particularly sharply since early February, as Congress agreed on further fiscal spending (we estimate net bill issuance in '18 at $475bn vs $200bn in '17). Supply is in play here, not credit issues. The gap between LIBOR and Fed funds rate is hardly out of line with previous hiking cycles (Figure 2).

Will this widening between LIBOR and OIS persist?

If we're right about T-bills being the real driver of this move, then LIBOR-OIS should not widen much more. The spread between T-bills and OIS is now positive (Figure 3), and this has typically been a limit in the widening.

Note that when funding stresses have risen in the past because of credit reasons, the T-bill to OIS spread has gone the other way. What we're witnessing today is higher rates, not a clogging of financial plumbing. 

Distinguish between the price of funding and access to funding

It is undeniable that higher US rates will have an impact on the 'price' of funding, perhaps globally, and that this will have consequences. But 'access' to funding is a completely different story. We see few signs of this having been compromised thus far. 

Neither credit nor currency markets suggest funding is becoming a problem

As we have argued, the underbelly of the risk trade – the weakest rating buckets in the US HY – are actually outperforming on a beta-adjusted basis. Spreads are remarkably stable in the context of higher front end rates and equity volatility (Figure 4).

Issuance and demand for paper have not been a problem. In currency markets, basis swaps (Figure 5) (difference between local currency and $ funding), risk reversals (the price of a $ call vs a $ put), and volatility are showing no signs of stress.

So, is there nothing to see here? Does the cost of funding not matter at all?

It does. But instead of LIBOR–OIS widening, which is likely a red herring, we need to focus on the right channels to assess changes in market trends. First, watch the hit from yields to floating rate HY credit. We estimate floating rate loans at $2.2tn, of which $1.1tn of loans ($690bn of leveraged loans, $459bn of bank C&I loans) have been extended to issuers rated below BB-. Our recent analysis shows leveraged loan issuers fundamentally will remain resilient to the next 75-100bp increase in Fed Funds rates, but further rises could elevate funding vulnerabilities. Second, watch US growth surprises relative to those in the rest of the world. Widening front end rate differentials will become more meaningful for currency trends if mirrored in growth differentials. We would pay particular attention to China, where data has been mixed to weak. The EM currency complex, thus far calm, may begin to weaken if growth here softens in backdrop of higher US rates (Figure 6).

Third, and most importantly, we would watch term premium in the US. Markets have been worried about the impact of higher rates, but thus far US rates volatility itself hasn’t risen meaningfully, and shouldn't do so unless term premium rises sharply (Figure 7). We have argued against a big shift here.

Where does this leave us?

We are positioned defensively on US HY credit, and are looking for modest trade weighted weakness in EM currencies (Figure 8).

However, we think back-end rates are likely more range-bound here and, based on the facts today, are not inclined to take a negative view on US stocks. We would be watching the three channels above to reassess our view." - source UBS

Obviously when it comes to the LIBOR-OIS widening more, UBS hasn't got it entirely right given, it Libor has been rising for 31 days in row so far. Is it a case of "reflexivity"? We wonder. One thing for certain, we have noticed since the beginning of the year a weaker tone in fund flows, particularly in US High Yield, which, we think could be indicative of the start of the end of the "Goldilocks environment" in credit markets which had still been prevailing in 2017 in the beta part of the market, with the CCC rating bucket posting some strong returns (Russell 2000 as well...).

While recently we have touched on the "hidden" leverage in the US consumer in our conversation "Intermezzo", if Libor is indeed a growing concern for some credit market and sell-side pundits then obviously one need to take into account "leverage". As per the explosion of the yield pig's short vol straw house in February akin to the equity tranche in the capital structure of our complex markets, identifying the leveraged players is essential as the credit cycle shows clear signs of fatigue and the start of tightening thanks to the hiking path of the Fed (and QT). On that particular question about leverage we read with interest UBS Global Credit Strategy note from the 19th of March entitled "Is US corporate leverage higher than reported?" and below is the summary before we go into their detailed note:

"Key questions

The state of US corporate balance sheets and the outlook is one of the key debates for fixed income investors. The consensus is, while we are in the later stages of the US credit cycle, a recession is not on the horizon. We agree. But we believe identifying those pockets within credit markets where credit and leverage growth has been excessive is crucial to capturing a potential inflection point in the credit cycle early and to calibrating the extent of the fallout.

Where are US corporate credit market excesses? A focus on loans

Our view is there are three corporate credit market imbalances in this cycle. First, the rise in lower-rated, longer dated investment grade debt1; second, a 100% increase in the number of triple C rated issuers to over 1,400, many of which have floating-rate liabilities; and third, excessive debt growth in the technology, electronics and pharmaceutical sectors. Our focus here is on US leveraged loans (LL), where $1.1tn in lower rated, spec grade loans is more vulnerable to our house view for 7 Fed hikes and a material flatting in the US yield curve through '19.

Leverage is high. After normalizing for addbacks, it is even higher.

US leveraged loan gross issuance hit $500bn in 2017, with 60% used for M&A, LBOs or recapitalizations. Total leverage on new deals is 5x, and near 5x since 2014, while 1st lien leverage is 3.9x, the highest in two decades. But are these figures understated? EBITDA add-backs are rampant and material, averaging 20-21% for M&A related deals in 2017 and 26% for large sponsor deals YTD (largest in the tech, metals and food sectors). The jury is still out on add-back realization rates, but a conservative view would push average total/ 1st lien leverage to 6.2x and 5x, respectively, on M&A deals.

What are the early warning signals and current prognosis?

Corporate leverage is therefore a structural risk. But are we at an inflection point in the credit cycle? Leveraged loans (1.35%) have outperformed high yield bonds (-0.52%) YTD even as LL default rates have risen moderately to 2.2% (from 1.4% in Q3 '17). First, we have created a proprietary non-bank LL liquidity indicator to assess if lenders are beginning to ration loan supply. This metric led spread widening in '15 and '07, but currently the indicator is at -2%, indicative of slight easing and a stable backdrop. Second, the key demand source for LL is collateralized debt obligations (CLOs), and portfolio concentrations are highest in technology (13-15%), healthcare (11-12%) and cable/media (8-9%). Our recent flows analysis suggests rising USD hedging costs and duration concerns are driving more foreign investors into loans. And while total returns in the above sectors are lagging the LL index, they remain in positive territory.

How to position credit portfolios?

Overall bank and non-bank lending standards are not showing signs of tightening credit, our credit-based recession gauge is at a modest 13% through Q3 '18 and broad US credit valuations are moderately overvalued. With the house view calling for materially higher short rates but a modest rise in long end yields and USD depreciation, we favour EM over DM corporate credit and US leveraged loans over US high yield. Our HY spread target remains 380bp vs 341bp current. We maintain the view that corporate credit markets can absorb the next several rate hikes, but spread tightening is over and investors should be more cautious as the hiking cycle matures. And we remain structurally underweight healthcare and tech across credit portfolios for 2018." - source UBS

We do agree with the above, namely that we would favor EM over DM in corporate credit. The recent outperformance of local-currency emerging-markets credit has been impressive, with the debt returning 2.4% so far this year while U.S. IG credit has lost 2.5%. If indeed the weaker tone in the US dollar continues its course, then again having exposure to Emerging Markets Local Currency debt is still an enticing proposal, even in the light of recent outperformance of the asset class. Regardless of some Zimmermann Telegram and Cold War 2.0 narrative, Russian debt continues to be appealing we think, and much more appealing than dangerously overpriced European Government bonds which in fact, like the German bund as of late, are barely trading in similar fashion to what happened with Japanese Government Bonds market (which in effect has ceased to trade). Getting Japanese? We really think so: Private investors hold only 10% of German government bonds. It’s impressive that this market functions at all.

- source IMF and ECB

But moving back to our US leverage story, UBS looks into details about the state of the US corporate leverage:

"Is US corporate leverage higher than reported?

The health of corporate balance sheets, particularly speculative grade and private firms, was one of the key thematic debates during our client visits in London. We break down the genesis of the questions into three sub-themes: first, within the US corporate credit markets where are the excesses? Second, how concerned are you about levels of leverage, and to what extent are earnings add-backs hiding risks? And third, what early warning signals are you monitoring and what is the current outlook?

Where are corporate credit market excesses?

We have previously outlined three corporate credit market imbalances that bear close tracking, with the latter two in focus in this piece3. First, in high grade the rise in lower-rated, longer dated issuance with the ratio of BBB/BB 10yr+ debt rising from 4.8x to 13.3x. Second, in speculative grade a doubling in the number of triple C rated issuers to over 1,400 (US corporate debt: revisiting financial stability concerns). A majority of these issuers have funding in the US leveraged loan market, issuing secured loans to boost issue level ratings; B-rated loans outstanding have risen from $195bn to $467bn since 2012 (Figure 1).

And third, above average debt growth in the technology, electronics and pharmaceutical sectors; for US leveraged loans specifically this thesis is evident in the growth of the broad manufacturing and sectors which have grown from $117 to $295bn and $256 to $448bn, respectively, since 2012 (Figure 2).

By sub-industry growth, manufacturing has been primarily electronics ($124bn from $52bn). In services, business services ($98bn from $77bn) and lodging/ leisure ($87bn vs. $52bn) have led the increase.

More recently, we have discussed lower rated firms as structurally more vulnerable to rising interest rates with near-peak leverage and relatively low interest coverage (Lesson Learned: The Underbelly of US Tightening). And we argued that $1.1trn of lower rated, spec grade loans were the fulcrum – i.e., more vulnerable to our house interest rate outlook characterized by aggressive Fed rate hikes (7 through '19) but significant yield curve flattening (with 5yr Treasuries projected to remain below 3% through '19). Our analysis suggested these issuers would be resilient to 3-4 Fed rate hikes, but 4 more would lower coverage ratios near pre-crisis ('06) levels (A deeper dive into US credit markets more vulnerable to aggressive Fed hikes).

How concerning are leverage levels, and are earnings add-backs hiding risks

US leveraged loan gross issuance hit a record of approximately $500bn in 2017, with about 60% of use of proceeds for leveraged buyouts (LBOs), M&A/acquisition or recapitalizations (Figure 3).

While the theme of LBOs is less prevalent this cycle vs the prior, M&A has been a more persistent theme – primarily between private/sponsor firms. The market has been a sellers/borrowers market in recent months, in part driven by duration concerns which are fueling inflows into floating rate products (The Technical Pulse: Where will yield-hungry investors next leave their global footprint?), the perceived safety of secured debt and financial deregulation (with bank adherence to the 2013 Leveraged Lending Guidance fading). While median total leverage metrics have declined from peak levels of 5x to 4.5x post-crisis, they are still above the 4.25-4.5x pre-crisis. In addition, the negative tail remains fatter as the proportion of issuers with leverage above 6x is 29% (vs a post-crisis high of 35%, and 19% pre-crisis).

To reiterate, these figures represent the median leverage for public leveraged loan issuers outstanding (i.e., leverage on the stock of public issuer loans). But 65% of the lev loans are actually from private firms. While we do not have median leverage data on the stock of private issuer loans outstanding, credit metrics are available on all new deals – public and private (i.e., the flow). This data shows average total leverage for all deals at 5x, with private leverage running at 5.2x (c1x higher than on new public deals). Total leverage on new private deals has been running above 5x on average since early 2014; in the last cycle, average leverage above 5x was seen from Mar '07 to Mar '08 (Figure 4).

Across the capital  structure, however, leverage through the 1st lien for all new deals is at 3.9x, and has been running higher than prior peaks since 2013 – one key reason why lev loan investors have heightened recovery rate concerns in this cycle (Figure 5).

But what if leverage (and coverage) figures are wrong? The issue of earnings adjustments (or engineering) has consistently reared its ugly head in our client discussions for several years, and it is certainly not confined to US leveraged loans – but the rhetoric from leveraged finance/distressed credit investors has grown stronger. Market participants suggest nearly every acquisition-related deal now has its share of EBITDA add-backs, and a number of long term investors have suggested this cycle is unlike any others they have witnessed. Figure 6 depicts our best estimate of the average EBITDA add-back (expressed as a turn of total leverage) for M&A deals over time.

We would posit that the phenomenon of EBITDA add-backs is partly an unintended consequence of macroprudential regulation. The 2013 Leveraged Lending Guidelines (not enforced until late 20147) capped pro forma leverage at 6x (and required 50% debt amortization within 5-7 years8), incentivizing issuers to manage pro forma EBITDA such that leverage would remain below the 6x threshold. Rising add-backs are likely also a byproduct of low interest rates and QE, which have pushed up asset valuations and M&A deal multiples and contributed to reach-for-yield behaviour and material easing in lending standards.

Aggregate data on the magnitude of EBITDA add-backs is not easily sourced. For this we have leveraged the work of Covenant Review, and more specifically data from their CR Trendlines Topical Reports. Their work suggests that EBITDA addbacks for M&A - related deals across sponsor/ non-sponsor deals in 2017 were approximately 20-21% of Pro Forma Adjusted EBITDA. In 2017, the tendency seemed to be greater add-backs appeared first among large sponsor deals, and then spread across mid-sized and non-sponsored loans. And in 2018 this seems to be taking shape again, as EBITDA add-backs for M&A-related deals for large sponsors are averaging 26% of Pro Forma Adjusted EBITDA – suggesting another "high water mark" for EBITDA add-backs is attempting to take shape now (as addbacks for mid-sized sponsored/ non-sponsored loans remain at 20 – 21%).

Finally, in terms of sector outliers, the magnitude of EBITDA add-backs is more aggressive in electronics, software, metals/mining and food/food services (ranging from 24 – 29%). Are the add-backs being realized? The verdict is still out. First, it is difficult to monitor the aggregate credit fundamentals for the stock of private loans post-deal. Second, the credit agreement and covenants typically allow borrowers 24 months or more to realize a majority of the add-backs, in part a function of the significant easing in lending standards post-crisis (consistent with the shift from covenant to covenant-lite loans, 75% in '17 vs. 29% in '07; Figure 7).

For illustrative purposes, if one assumes a liberal view that all add-backs are realized then leverage levels are unchanged; however, if one takes a conservative view and excludes add-backs, total and 1st lien new deal leverage would increase to 5.0x and 6.2x, respectively, on average from 3.9x and 4.9x, respectively (Figure 8).

What early warning signals are you monitoring and what is the prognosis?

At this point, we don't see an inflection in the credit cycle. First, leveraged loans (1.35%) have outperformed high yield bonds (-0.52%) year-to-date amid higher rate and equity volatility, and LL spreads remain firm at 368bp (4yr discounted spread) even as LL default rates tick up moderately to 2.2% from a low of 1.4% in August (Figure 9).

Second, we have also created a proprietary non-bank LL liquidity indicator, following the methodology of our non-bank liquidity indicator (Credit Cycle Turning? Non-bank Liquidity Hits Multi-Year Lows), which calibrates changes in net loan issuance for low quality credits to determine if lenders are starting to ration their existing liquidity to higher quality borrowers. Historically, this proxy proved to be a warning signal in Q3 2007 and Q4 2014 when net tightening in lending standards reached +5 to 10% while spreads were still relatively tight (Figure 10).

Currently the indicator is at -2%, indicative of net easing and a constructive backdrop in the LL primary market.

Third, in terms of market structure and sector risks, the key demand source in terms of flow and stock of LL is collateralized debt obligations (CLOs, Figure 11).

And CLO portfolio exposures can be quite diverse, suggesting investors should pay attention to concentration risks. In this respect, we are focused on the outlook for technology (13-15% average exposure in CLOs), mainly software given robust debt growth, M&A activity and EBITDA add-backs and, secondarily, the healthcare (11-12%) and cable/media (8-9%) industries10. YTD total returns in these sectors are lagging the overall index modestly (electronics 0.90%, healthcare 1.12%, cable television 0.86%), but remain positive overall. 

Lastly and more broadly, bank and non-bank lending standards are not showing signs of tightening credit, our proprietary credit-based recession gauge is a modest 13% through Q3 '18, and broader US credit valuations look 0.8 standard deviations rich (vs. 2 standard deviations back in Q2 '07; Where are we in the credit cycle?)." - source UBS

One thing for certain is that the M&A wave we foresaw for 2018 has been staggering and as a late cycle red flag it is as clear as you can get with global deal making this year crossing the $1tn mark on Tuesday, the fastest it has ever reached that level, as a wave of consolidation spreads across the US and activity in the UK, China, Germany and Japan accelerates. You don't need no Zimmermann Telegram to tell you this but it certainly feels like late 2007 all over again and even early 2008 one could posit given we are seeing the return of Mega M&A deals as indicated by Wells Fargo in their Credit Spotlight note from the 15th of March entitled "Mega Deals Strike Back":

"Animal spirits continue to swirl in corporate boardrooms as evidenced by the recently announced Cigna/Express Scripts and Comcast/Sky proposed acquisitions. Industry consolidation is clearly en vogue across a range of sectors, and with debt markets willing to finance mega debt cap-structures, it seems unlikely to stop anytime soon. As a result, despite a healthy economic backdrop, credit investors need to tread cautiously as they navigate an upsurge of idiosyncratic risk, and for index oriented investors, what you don’t own could be just as important as what you do when it comes to performance.

We expect a record amount of M&A in 2018. This should result in another year of record bond issuance in the IG market.

M&A Update – Continue to Expect a Record Year

Mega Cap M&A continues to be a key driver of U.S. credit markets, both as a driver of leverage and a driver of bond issuance. We continue to expect M&A in 2018 to move to a new all-time high and lead to increased bond issuance in the IG market. There has been more than $387 billion of M&A announced so far in 2018, on pace to be the largest first quarter of M&A announcements on record. In fact, M&A is currently on pace to reach $1.8 trillion, breaking the previous record of $1.7 trillion from 2015.

We expect M&A to be the main driver of increased bond issuance in 2018 as we expect M&A-related funding to rise from $175 billion to $250 billion, accounting for substantially all of our increase in net supply for the year. We expect the Consumer Non-Cyclical sector to be the primary driver as M&A heats up in each of the Health Care, Pharmaceutical, Food & Beverage and Consumer Products subsectors. The rising M&A and issuance need are the key drivers of our Underweight recommendation on the sector.

The mega deals have really been the driver of increased M&A over the past few years. In each of 2016 and 2018 over 20% of the total M&A volume has come from deals over $40 billion. In addition, with the exception of 2017 over 40% of the M&A volume has come from deals in excess of $10 billion.

The increase in the propensity of these larger deals also has increased the funding need in the IG bond market and has led to a significant increase in the size of the average capital structure within the market. These large cap structures are now nearly on par with the mega banks in terms of index weightings." - source Wells Fargo.

The return of large M&A mega deals is clearly as stated a late cycle behavior we think akin to what we saw in 2007. If indeed the credit amplifier is still going to 11 in true spinal tap fashion, then again a flattening US yield curve and the rise in the front end, will make Investment Grade credit less and less alluring we think from a pure allocation perspective in the current environment. No doubt overall the liquidity picture is changing and you should take notice and start to be more defensive in regards to "cyclicals" at least, even if the FOMC shows greater "optimism" on the economic cycle.


In November in both our conversations "Stress concentration" and "The Roots of Coincidence" we argued that we were starting to see cracks in the credit narrative thanks to rising dispersion at the issuer level as well as growing negative basis credit index wise. We added that rising dispersion meant better alpha generation from pure active credit players, particularly in the light of rising M&A activity in 2018 and the need to reach for your LBO screener to avoid potential sucker punches in the form of sudden credit spreads blowing out in your face. As we pointed out in our previous conversations, dispersion is indicative of the lateness in the credit cycle and the beta game, and it means, as we posited that active managers should outperform in 2018. In our final point below, we would like to look again at dispersion given rising dispersion in our book amounts to credit deterioration.

• Final charts - Dispersion matters 

Normally, higher dispersion should drive eventually spreads wider. Since 2013, balance sheet leverage has been widening, therefore on top of Libor woes building up, investors should be wise in tracking leverage ratios in 2018. One of our final charts comes from Barclays note from the 16th of March 2018 entitled "Lessons in Leverage" and displays the history of the US High Yield Index spread versus the dispersion of net leverage at the single name level (ex-financials):

"Figure 5 overlays the history of the US High Yield Index spread versus the dispersion of net leverage at the single name level (ex-financials), with dispersion measured as the difference in turns of net leverage between the 80th and 20th percentiles of high yield credits at any point in time. While there are many drivers of spreads, we could expect at least a reasonable relationship between the dispersion of leverage and the overall market spread - namely , high and increasing dispersion likely coincides with periods of credit deterioration derived from macro challenges, and vice versa. Note that the dispersion of leverage remains reasonably far above the 2014 lows (given the drivers and observations noted above), while the high yield market spread is less dislocated. That may suggest that any credit improvement that might occur in 2018 (particularly for lower-quality segments) has already largely been factored in and that a further tightening of credit risk premia would have to be sourced from other drivers besides fundamentals" - source Barclays

This trend of rising dispersion can also be seen in the synthetic derivatives part in the US credit market namely in the CDX HY index where dispersion is also on the rise as indicated by CITI in their Global Credit Strategy Focus note from the 15th of March entitled "What is happening with CDX IG volatility?":

"There are several reasons why CDX HY may not be a good tail risk hedge at the moment. First, the default environment is expected to remain benign going forward. In addition to the decline in HY defaults over the past year, Moody’s is expecting the HY default rate to fall even further over the next year. Second, two other metrics of HY cash portfolios also provide reasons for optimism.
The maturity distribution for the Bloomberg Barclays cash HY index indicates that less than 5% of the entire portfolio by notional will mature over the next 2 years, out of which less than 1% is expected to mature in the next year. In other words, even if rates were to rise, the total amount of HY debt coming up for refinancing is quite small. there is a fairly limited overlap between CDX HY constituents and the Bloomberg Barclays cash HY index. We find only 35% of the total notional in the cash index corresponds to the names in the CDX HY index (see Figure 4 (left)). Given that a significant component of tail risk in HY is a pick-up in defaults, using CDX HY as a hedge against cash HY portfolios would leave a large portion of the average cash HY portfolio exposed.
All of these reasons have contributed to investors currently staying away from using CDX HY payers as a tail risk hedge. Instead, what we are observing at the moment in HY hedging is investor activity targeted at individual names, which has also caused dispersion to rise in the CDX HY portfolio (see Figure 4 (right)).

In contrast to CDX HY which is more sensitive to (idiosyncratic) default risk, CDX IG is more sensitive to macro risks. One of the major tail risks on investors’ radar is rising inflation. As investors digest the effects of the newly instituted tariffs on aluminum and steel, the rising risk from potential trade war scenarios and the overall wealth effects from tax cuts, we are seeing inflation tick higher, as evidenced by the rise in 5y inflation breakevens.

Our analysis of data during a past rising rate environment (1963-1981) has shown that higher inflation can potentially drive credit spreads wider (see Figure 5 right), and here) for a more detailed discussion. Such dynamics would make CDX IG spreads an appropriate choice for inflation-driven tail risk for credit investors.

At the current time, markets are pricing in roughly 3 (25bp) rate hikes over the next year, which is also the base case projection from Citi economists (see here). However, a 4th rate hike has not been completely ruled out, and if it were to materialize, we could see another sell-off in credit spreads, especially concentrated in IG since IG credit is more sensitive to duration risk." - source CITI

Rising credit dispersion, rising inflation and a potential trade war means that no matter how you look at your Zimmermann Telegram from the credit markets, the Goldilocks narrative which has been prevailing for so long look to us increasingly at risk in 2018.

"Like most of those who study history, he (Napoleon III) learned from the mistakes of the past how to make new ones." -  A. J. P. Taylor, British historian

Stay tuned !