Andrew Sheets: The Case for Optimism in the Near Term

How will corporate credit markets fare as the Fed keeps rates higher for longer? Look for wider spreads, further decompression and muted excess returns. ----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed-Income Strategist. Along with my colleagues bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the outlook for corporate credit markets. It's Wednesday, June 28th at 11 a.m. in New York. Our economists are calling for one more 25 basis point rate hike in the upcoming Fed meeting in July and pause thereafter until the end of first quarter of next year. They're also calling for continued growth slowdown because of the policy tightening that we have seen over the last 15 months or so. A restrictive pause, which means rates staying higher for longer, and muted growth will weigh more on the performance of the corporate credit markets, especially as refinancing needs pick up. So our call is for wider spreads, further decompression and muted excess returns for corporate grade markets. Within credit we favor higher quality, which means investment grade credit over leveraged credit, both in bonds and in loans. Let's dig into some details. Industrial grade credit looks attractive from a duration lens, and we expect 7% plus total returns over the next 12 months. From a spread perspective, our base case target, a 150 basis point, calls for modest widening. Although risks are skewed to the downside in the recession bear case scenario to 200 basis points. We think the banking space looks cheap versus the market, especially money center banks. We favor single A's or triple B's and shortening of portfolio duration. Our preference is to own the front end of the curve within the investment graded space. Higher for longer puts more pressure on lower quality borrowers. While the macro outlook is not acutely challenging for credit, it progressively erodes debt affordability. For larger and higher quality borrowers, we expect the net impact to be gradual decline in interest coverage ratios and a voluntary focus on right sizing balance sheets. For smaller and lower quality companies, this adjustment could well be disruptive as 2025 maturity walls come into view. So even in leverage credit, we would look to stay up in quality. The layering of leverage and rate sensitivity in loans informs our preference for bonds in general relative to loans. We expect loan only structures to underperform mixed capital structures. We also expect sponsor commitment will be put to test. That said, higher quality names within the loan market are a way to benefit from the shape of the rates curve and generate better near-term carry. In all, we forecast wider spreads and higher default rates in the lower quality segments of the credit markets. Relative to the modest widening in the investment grade space within high yield and leveraged loans, we expect more significant widening in the range of 120 basis points of widening. This will result in marginally negative excess returns for these segments and will screen even worse when adjusted for volatility and downside risk. We forecast default rates pushing above long-run averages with loan defaults outpacing bond defaults, especially after accounting for distressed exchanges. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

28 Juni 20233min

With A.I. rapidly reaching the mass market, investors are pondering the risks and upsides to A.I. diffusion. History may provide some answers.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ed Stanley, Morgan Stanley's Head of Thematic Research in Europe. And along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll be discussing ten key lessons from the last hundred years of tech diffusion. It's Tuesday, the 27th of June at 3 p.m. in London. Tech diffusion is one of the three big themes we at Morgan Stanley Research are following in 2023. The other two being the multipolar world and decarbonization. And when we say ‘tech diffusion,’ which has become a term of art, we mean the process by which any transformational technology is adopted widely by consumers and industries. Think of the light bulb, the first power plant, the internet, and now, A.I.. Our recent analysis of the last hundred years of tech diffusion helps to shed light on ten critical questions around how, when and where stocks will be impacted from the development of A.I.. One of the most important issues to consider is how fast A.I. diffusion is happening and whether regulation can restrain this. Since its pivotal moment when it was released in November, the leading generative A.I. tools are on pace to do in one year what the internet took seven years to achieve in spilling over to the mass market, and electricity took around 20 years to do the same thing. The next critical question to consider is whether we tend to see upside or downside happen first for industries being impacted. In examining 80 structural positive and negative adoption curves over the last 50 years, we find that downside disruption often occurs sooner and twice as quickly as upside disruption. So how does the downside play out for stocks perceived to be by investors more at risk from these types of technology disruption? The market typically de-rates and waits. So valuations fall somewhere between 50 to 60% in the years 1 to 3 post-a-disruptive-event with consensus sales and profit downgrades taking anywhere around 5 to 7 years to materialize. This process is shorter for business to consumer, B2B and longer for business to business contracts, B2B. And what about the ways that upside plays out? For perceived winners, upgrades need to arrive within 6 to 12 months post the initial re-rating. However, we find that missing the first year of upside tends to have little impact on long term compound returns for investors. Investors also wonder to what degree A.I. might be a bubble. And this is a fair question considering the market excitement and froth in A.I. at the moment, but we're watching Internet search trends to answer this question. And if you look at image generation tools for A.I., we're already about 50% lower than peak search volumes. So it's a trend we're going to have to continue to watch pretty closely. Given all this, at what point do we expect killer apps to emerge that are built on top of these technologies? Well, our analysis of the last 50 examples of these killer apps emerging suggests that they tend to take a year and a half to emerge. This is why it's often very challenging to find domain specific winners in the public markets because they are still likely to be in venture backed scale up stage at the moment. But when the killer apps do emerge, the next question becomes how much value will accrue to the incumbents versus the disruptors. And on this point, history suggests that diffusion of technologies that are transformational like this have tended to lead to changes in stock market leadership over the last hundred years, with ultimately 2.3% of all companies generating all $75 trillion of net shareholder returns since 1990. In this context, are pure play or diversified stocks the best ways to play these themes? Over the long run, we believe that pure play stocks exposed to themes such as A.I., can be expected to be valued at approximately 25% premium to non pure play stocks on average. And the final two questions we get from investors take a more macro tilt. First, how much and when can we expect to see productivity gains? We are already seeing these productivity gains. The question is, what range? And we've seen anywhere between 20 to 55% for software developers, we've seen 14% for call center workers, and healthcare is also a large focus of academic research in terms of A.I. productivity and efficiency gains. Finally, there is the question of deflation. When and how much can we expect from this kind of technology? This remains the most challenging question to answer. Technology of all kinds has proven consistently deflationary, and we think this is no different. But we do suggest that investors familiarize themselves with the emerging debates on virtual assistance, which could accelerate these deflationary spillover effects. We'll continue to track all these developments around the ten key lessons and questions from history, and we'll provide you timely updates accordingly. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

27 Juni 20235min

While many countries are gearing up to combat climate change, financing these large projects may pose a challenge. ----- Transcript -----Simon Waever: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Simon Waever, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of EM Sovereign Credit Strategy. Carolyn Campbell: And I'm Carolyn Campbell, Head of Morgan Stanley's ESG Fixed-Income Research. Simon Waever: On this special episode of the podcast, we'll discuss the credit impact of climate finance in emerging markets. Carolyn Campbell: It's Monday, June 26, at 10 a.m. in New York. Simon Waever: We believe that the ramp up in climate mitigation and adaptation financing from developed markets can be a key credit positive for emerging market countries, if executed correctly. The amounts of financing required in low and middle income countries to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change is likely to be over 1 trillion per year by 2030. Carolyn, let's start with that 1 trillion figure and the scale of the challenge. How are low and middle income countries positioned for climate change? Carolyn Campbell: So when we think about climate change, there's two sides of the coin. There's climate change mitigation, which is everything that will slow or prevent the temperature from rising more than a degree and a half above pre-industrial levels, which is the goal of the Paris Agreement. And on the other side, we've got adaptation, which is financing projects that will build resiliency to physical risks, for example, or to help transform the economy away from dependency on industries that are likely to be harmed by climate change. So on the mitigation side, we've seen energy consumption in emerging markets steadily rise over the past couple of decades as their economies continue to develop and their populations grow often at faster rates than we see in developed countries. Now, while we've seen absolute levels of renewable energy usage tick up in these countries, on a proportional basis we're not seeing a material change, and that's because of this absolute rise in energy usage overall. So that leaves a lot of scope for the expansion of low carbon technologies such as wind and solar and so on, and that's obviously very expensive. On the adaptation side, a lot of the emerging markets are located in areas that will bear the brunt of climate change, whether that's through worsening storms or increased droughts, rising sea levels and so on, and they don't have the same infrastructure or economic diversity to deal with these climate impacts. So it's an immense amount of capital required for both types of projects, as you said, likely to be greater than a trillion dollars per year by 2030. And so far, developed markets have actually come up short on their promise to deliver $100 billion annually in climate finance. So all this being said, I think it begs the question how will they pay for it without incurring an unsustainable debt load? Simon Waever: Yep, that is the question. And I would say the good news so far is that more and more sources are being made available with some being more targeted than others. The first main source is loans. So these generally come from either bilateral agreements, so from other sovereigns, or from multilateral institutions such as the World Bank. An example of a new facility being made available just in the past year is the resilience and sustainability trust from the IMF, which has now already made disbursements to six countries with more on the way. And the advantage of this facility, compared to others from the IMF, is that it comes at a lower cost and a longer maturity. The second main source is the capital markets. The instruments people will be most familiar with here are the labeled bonds, such as green, sustainable or even sustainability linked bonds that see their coupons change depending on various targets being met. But today, there's also an increasing use of the debt for nature swaps such as used in Belize and Ecuador recently and the introduction of climate resilient debt clauses. What this means is that if an adverse event happens like a hurricane, etc., there can be an automatic pause or delay in payments, which in theory should help both the country and creditors because you avoid going into any distress situation on the bonds. But another interesting avenue that's opened up in the last decade or so has been to raise financing by turning carbon into a commodity, whether as a voluntary carbon offset or through direct carbon pricing. Carolyn, how would those be used? Carolyn Campbell: Yeah. So on the voluntary carbon side, a credit represents one tonne of carbon reduced, removed or avoided, and a lot of emerging markets are able to sell these credits, not necessarily at the sovereign level directly, but in some cases, yes, to developed markets, either to the sovereigns or to corporates who are willing to buy those emissions to offset against their own. And so those projects can be anything related to forest preservation or other natural capital projects or linked to renewable energy deployment and so on, and that can help raise the financing to get those projects off the ground. On the other side, there's direct carbon pricing, which is compulsory and includes things like Europe's emissions trading scheme or commonly thought of as cap and trade programs. There's also carbon taxes which raise revenue from businesses that emit and tax every tonne of carbon emitted. And direct carbon pricing is really important because the revenues raised from these schemes don't actually have to be applied to green projects so they can further other local development priorities. Lots of interesting avenues, but not every avenue will be suitable for every country, there's a wide range of emerging markets out there. But let's assume for a moment that all the financing will actually be deployed at a sufficient scale over the near and medium term. What does that mean for the credit quality of these recipient nations? Simon Waever: Yes. So as we've actually covered before on this podcast, developing countries are facing significant financing challenges. And by that I mean they've been used to getting a lot of cheap financing over the last ten years, that's no longer available. So if the result is that more financing is being made available, that is credit positive, especially if it then also comes at lower financing costs and with longer maturities. I would of course say that the magnitude of the impact is going to differ by country, and overall, I would highlight the lower rates of countries as benefiting the most. And just to give two examples of countries that have benefited recently, one is Kenya. They've been under pressure in the markets because they have a 2 billion maturity next year that people were questioning where they were going to get the funds to repay it. Now, through the help of the IMF and their new Resilience Sustainability Trust facility, they've seen larger disbursements and the markets have traded much better. The other example is Ecuador that was able to complete a debt for nature swap that in the end resulted in lower debt burden, fewer bonds outstanding, and at the same time helping conserve the Marine area in Ecuador. But actually, all this is a lot about just a near-term impact. The longer term impacts will eventually turn out to be even more important, I would think. Carolyn, could you give some examples of this? Carolyn Campbell: So on the one side, we've got climate resiliency improvements that can materialize in ways like reduced costs in the face of acute weather events or economic resiliency to slow onset adverse climate events, we mentioned droughts earlier. Another very important avenue is fundamental improvements via the renewable energy transition. So deployment of renewable energy might increase overall levels of electrification in the country, which can boost productivity and so on. If we think about South Africa as an example, South Africa has struggled with lower productivity because of its dependency on aging coal power plants. So there's a real case to be made about the benefits of renewable energy deployment there in terms of economic productivity. So all this sounds great, but there are some real execution risks for this quantity of financing and getting these projects off the ground. Simon can you tell us what that might mean for these countries? Simon Waever: Right. That's a key topic, and it may be that there's actually insufficient climate financing, and that would at best mean that you have other suboptimal financing sources used. But at worst, that we see scaled back, delayed or even canceled climate projects. And actually the risk of this happening isn't low, so it's something we do need to watch. And then another risk is that the debt dispersed but used in the wrong places or used inefficiently, because then you end up with the countries with higher leverage that doesn't actually see the benefits. Simon Waever: But with that, Thanks, Carolyn. Thanks for taking the time to talk. Carolyn Campbell: Great speaking with you, Simon. Simon Waever: And thanks to everyone for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

26 Juni 20238min

This year, foreign exchange has been even harder than usual to predict. Even so, the outlook for the U.S. Dollar may prove to be a handy asset moving forward.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Dave Adams, Head of G10 Foreign Exchange Strategy at Morgan Stanley. And today I'll be talking about our outlook for the U.S. dollar and why it may prove an important driver of investor returns this year. It's Friday, June 23rd at 3 p.m. in London. Foreign exchange has long been known as a hard asset class to predict, and this year has proven to be even harder than usual. Consensus trades left and right have missed the mark, and both disagreement and uncertainty are the highest we've seen in years. So where do we go from here? We think the U.S. dollar is going to keep rallying, rising about 5% or so by the end of the year. Central bankers are likely to keep their feet on the brakes in order to tackle inflation. And in doing so, growth is likely to remain anemic, with risks skewed to the downside. Against this backdrop, we think two key themes are going to emerge: demand for carry and demand for defense. Carry is attractive in a slow growth world and is likely to explain a lot more of investor returns if prices don't move very much. And defensiveness is an alluring quality in financial assets when optimism is low, uncertainty is high and risks abound. It's pretty rare to find a financial asset that offers both of these qualities. Typically, insurance costs you money. But the good news is that the US dollar does. The dollar tends to be negatively correlated versus the equity market, meaning that when equities go down, the dollar goes up, and that relationship has only strengthened in recent years. Meanwhile, U.S. rates are elevated versus the rest of the world thanks to Fed rate hikes. Dollar rates are roughly 2% higher than those in Europe and even 5% higher compared to those in Japan.Foreign exchange is a relative game, and if investors are buying the dollar, they're probably selling something. We think in this high uncertainty environment currencies which are most sensitive to growth and risk assets would likely weaken the most. In the G10 space, the Australian dollar and the Swedish krona both look vulnerable here, while in emerging markets that's probably the South African rand and the Chinese renminbi. There are plenty of potential risks on the horizon to keep investors worried; banking sector volatility, geopolitical risks, sticky inflation, just to name a few. As the investment outlook remains cloudy and hazy, the U.S. dollar is a handy asset to keep in the portfolio as a positive carry insurance hedge. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

23 Juni 20232min

As the U.S. Economy still angles for a soft landing, the recent Federal Open Markets Committee meeting may have left more questions than answers.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ellen Zentner, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the outcome of the June Federal Open Market Committee meeting and our outlook for the U.S. economy. It's Thursday, June 22nd at 10 a.m. in New York. Hawks and doves entered the battlefield at the June FOMC meeting, wrangling over the extent to which further rate hikes might be needed and how forcefully to convey that. As expected, the FOMC held rates steady at 5.1% and maintained a tightening bias in the statement. But it's also important to note that the statement included an ever so slight change in language that made further rate hikes seem less certain. So in all, this suggests the Fed could raise rates later this year, although when thinking about the very next meeting we think the bar to hike in July is much higher than market pricing implies. And the new summary of economic projections, which is made up of Federal Open Market Committee participants projections for things like GDP growth, the unemployment rate, inflation and the appropriate policy path, FOMC participants revised up the policy path for this year by a full 50 basis points. So that would imply two more 25 basis point rate hikes. They also lifted their growth projections for this year, they revised down the unemployment rate and they revised upward their core PCE inflation forecast. So all in all, that's a summary of economic projections that skewed very hawkish. Now, we find the upward revision to core PCE most perplexing as incoming data on inflation had been in line with the Fed's forecasts, and especially as key measures of core services inflation have consecutively softened. Now in relation to our forecasts, we think this sets up core inflation to fall faster than the Fed currently projects, which should offset the takeaways from a higher peak rate in the DOT plot. The core inflation projection for this year and the level of the Fed funds rate could get revised downward by the time the FOMC meets in September. In our latest outlook, we continue to see a soft landing for the U.S. economy this year, with inflation and wages slowly easing, as well as job gains. Now consistent with this expectation, we continue to look for the Fed to hold the peak rate at 5.1% for an extended period before making the first .25% cut in March 2024. Like the Fed, we have to be humble here and we do see the effects of banking stresses on the economy as highly uncertain, and we'll hone our expectations for the economy and monetary policy as the incoming data unfold. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

22 Juni 20232min

While high oil prices at the end of last year drove down demand and freed up supply, this year many expect the market to tighten again. So why hasn’t it tightened yet?----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodity Strategist. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today I'll discuss the outlook for the global oil market for the rest of 2023. It is Wednesday, June 21st at 3 p.m. in London. Last year saw severe tightness in most commodity markets. Demand still benefited from the post-COVID recovery, and supply was disrupted by the war in Ukraine. In many markets, prices had to rise to a level where demand destruction occurred. In the oil markets, that led Brent crude oil to rise to $130 a barrel, gasoline to $180 and diesel $190 a barrel. Those prices clearly did the trick. In response, the global economy slowed down and oil demand softened towards year end, resulting in a slight oversupply at market earlier this year. In recent months, however, the main narrative in the oil market has been a one of re-tightening into the second half. The market was clearly in surplus in the first quarter, but was widely expected to tighten again by the second half due to a combination of China reopening, continued recovery in aviation and downside risk to supply from Russia. Those factors should see the market balance in the second quarter and reenter a meaningful deficit in the third and fourth quarter, driving prices higher. In fact, that was also our expectation at the start orrf the year. However, if this was indeed to play out, we should see it by now. Given we are currently in June, the most actively traded Brent contract is the one for August delivery. North Sea oil delivered in August will typically arrive at a refinery around about September, with end products made from that crude oil such as gasoline, diesel and jet typically delivered to end customers by October. Therefore, the oil market is already trading the anticipated supply-demand balance deep into the second half. Yet the expected tightness has not yet emerged. This is not due to China's reopening, which has boosted oil demand broadly as expected. Already in March, Chinese refinery runs and its crude oil imports reached all time highs again. The recovery in aviation, and with that jet fuel consumption, is also broadly playing out as expected. Instead, most reasons for the weaker than expected oil market balance lie on the supply side. For starters, Russian exports have been remarkably resilient. The EU sanctions on the imports of Russian oil were widely expected to result in lower oil production from the country, but this has not materialized. On top, oil production from other non-OPEC countries have surprised to the upside. Notwithstanding low investment levels over the last few years, oil production has grown in a wide variety of countries, including the United States, but also Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Guyana, Colombia, Mexico, Oman and even China. As a result, oil production from non-OPEC countries has started to grow faster than global oil demand once again. When that is the case, the balance in the oil market can only be maintained if OPEC cuts production. And that is indeed what the producers group has been doing. OPEC already announced a production cut back in October of last year, and then again in April of this year, and again earlier this month. However, in doing so, OPEC loses market share to non-OPEC producers and it builds up spare capacity, both factors that typically end up weighing on oil markets. We still foresee a small deficit in the oil market in the third and the fourth quarter, but this is mostly a function of seasonality in demand and OPEC cuts. Those factors are not inherently bullish. If second half tightening does not play out, then market participants may need to consider what lies just beyond that. Our balances for early 2024 do not look so tight. Next year, demand will no longer be supported by another year of China reopening and aviation growth. There will still be supply growth in several non-OPEC countries, and seasonality, which is currently a tailwind, will turn into a headwind. There is still likely a period ahead when global GDP growth re-accelerates and the impact of little investment in new production capacity should start to bite. However, the cyclical and the structural outlook do not always align. Over the next six months, we see oil prices broadly stable at about $75 to $80 a barrel for Brent. What market participants find right in front of them is neutral rather than constructive. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

21 Juni 20234min

While the U.S is moving towards a soft landing and Japan is seeing nominal growth, the European economy continues to face restrictive policy.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Morgan Stanley's Global Head of Macro Strategy. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, today, I'll talk about our mid-year outlook for macro markets. It's Tuesday, June 20th at 10 a.m. in New York. As we look ahead at macro markets for the next 12 months, central banks are front and center again. Our economists see them finding peak rates mid-year, while growth slows and inflation remains sticky. They also see the U.S. moving towards a soft landing, while the Euro area economy continues to face more restrictive policy. The U.K. continues to muddle through, while Japan delivers a year of nominal growth. Two global risk scenarios that our economists consider, a hard landing in the U.S. and then faster disinflation also in the U.S., should keep macro markets on the defensive. We think sovereign bond yields will end the year lower than in the first half, while the U.S. dollar will end the year stronger. We think macro markets already reflect the base case outlook for a soft landing and gradual adjustments in monetary policy. The view from our economists, which is mostly in the market price, aligns neatly with this consensus. So what will move markets into year end? Price action should, of course, evolve as surprises to this consensus view unfold. As usual, uncertainties around the outlook for monetary policy are murky, raising risks that the outcome will surprise currently held consensus views. One uncertainty involves the stance of monetary policy and the impact of the previous tightening that's been put in place. Have central banks tightened enough already to bring inflation back to target, in a suitable time frame? How long and variable are the lags of monetary policy today? We think rates market volatility, currently at its local lows, under appreciates the multitude of risks that lie ahead. For example, the lack of negative headlines around regional banks in the US have made investors complacent about bank stresses being behind us. However, key data points on bank balance sheets show that things have worsened on the margin since March. As for government bonds, we expect them to end the year with a rally for which investors have been waiting for, and we wouldn't be surprised if the positive returns accrued in line with historical seasonality. For example, strength in July and August, followed by a lull and then further strength in November and December. If you look at the US dollar, there's been a debate around the extent of the dollar's dominance in the global economy. As things stand, foreign investors continue to have a voracious appetite for US dollar denominated assets thanks to their strong returns and the U.S. economy's deep and liquid capital markets. So we forecast continued U.S. dollar strength into year end as tepid growth and asymmetric downside economic risk amplify investor demand for carry and defensive assets. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

21 Juni 20233min

With investors anticipating earnings surprises for US stocks, the outlook for municipal bonds is looking brighter.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income and Thematic Research for Morgan Stanley. Mark Schmidt: And I'm Mark Schmidt, Head of Municipal Strategy. Michael Zezas: And today, we'll be talking about the core of many investors' fixed income portfolios, municipal bonds. It's Friday, June 16th at 9am in New York. Michael Zezas: As our equity strategists continue to highlight the risk of earnings surprises for U.S. stocks, the outlook for the bond market looks considerably better. A soft landing, so call it, slow growth and slowing inflation, would mean favorable total return prospects across fixed income. In fact, even as the Fed's been raising short term rates, longer term bond yields have been falling as investors anticipate both inflation and growth to decline. So, Mark, for the benefit of listeners, tell us why this is a sweet spot for munis. Mark Schmidt: Thanks, Michael. Municipal bonds, high credit quality and tax exempt income are an opportunity for investors in high tax brackets right now. Credit quality for municipals can seem confusing, but we like to think of it in a pretty simple way. What's the outlook for tax collections? Income tax collections were mixed in April, but sales and property taxes continue to grow. Also, most state and local governments still have plenty of cash on reserve in case the economy performs worse than our economists expect. That cash comes from all the aid that the federal government provided, several hundred billion dollars, in fact, to municipal issuers in response to COVID. That's created a balance sheet buffer that can still support issuers today, even as growth slows. Now, even though credit quality remains pretty good, the good news is we don't think you need to take a lot of risks to enjoy the benefits of tax free income in your portfolio. Michael Zezas: And Mark, investors ask a lot about what the right maturity of bond is for their portfolio. What do you think investors should favor right now? Shorter or longer maturity bonds? Mark Schmidt: Longer maturity bonds generally offer higher returns, but of course, with higher risk as well. Right now, we actually see superior risk adjusted returns in a 1 to 5 year or 1 to 10 year latter. We'd look for investment grade credits in those shorter maturities for investors seeking higher income with higher risk. We'd recommend a barbell approach, one that blends short 1 to 5 year maturities with select maturities between 15 and 20 years. On the long end of the curve, we prefer very high quality AA bonds. With credit spreads and risk free rates at multi-year highs, we just don't think you need to reach for yield in this environment, especially as the economy slows. But Michael, one question that always comes up with regards to municipal bonds is the risk of the tax exemption changing, given how important tax free income is for municipal investors. Congress does change the tax code from time to time, do you expect major legislation out of Washington anytime soon? Michael Zezas: In short, no. Major tax reforms tend to happen once in a generation, and they tend to need one party to control both the White House and both chambers of Congress. And even then, a big tax code change needs to be their priority. So, the earliest this could possibly happen again would be after the 2024 election, so call it 2025. And then again, even then, it's not clear that even if one party were to take control of Congress and the White House, that this would be a priority for them. So in short, it's not something I'd be particularly concerned about. But Mark, turning it back to you. Munis helped to build all kinds of infrastructures in states and cities, colleges, hospitals, airports and toll roads. They all issue municipal bonds. What sectors do you like right now? Mark Schmidt: We think the outlook for most transportation issuers remains pretty good. Summer vacations are right around the corner, and we all definitely want to pack our bags and hit the road. All those travelers going through airports and on toll roads is good news for credit quality. Now, as for one sector where credit quality is more mixed, health care providers are still recovering from all the disruptions related to COVID. You all know the story, of course, as more patients required more specialized care, the demand for nurses and frontline health care workers skyrocketed, leading to higher costs across the board. Those costs are now stabilizing, but we continue to think it will take some time for credit quality to fully recover. When it comes to some of these choices about sectors and credit quality, though, remember that volatility is relative. Compared to other asset classes, fundamentals for investment grade municipal bonds don't change very quickly or very often. They're the classic late cycle haven, as you've mentioned, Michael, in years before. Michael Zezas: Well, Mark, this has been really insightful. Thanks for taking the time to talk. Mark Schmidt: Great speaking with you today, Michael. Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy thoughts on the Market, please be sure to rate and review us on the Apple Podcasts app. It helps more people find the show.

16 Juni 20234min