(The following commentary is a summary of discussions among members of the Breckinridge Capital Advisors Investment Committee as they reviewed monthly activity in the markets and investment returns. The members of the Investment Committee under the leadership of Chief Investment Officer Ognjen Sosa, CAIA, FRM, are Co-Head of Portfolio Management, Matthew Buscone; Senior Portfolio Manager Sara Chanda; Co-Head of Research, Nicholas Elfner; Co-Head of Portfolio Management, Jeffrey Glenn, CFA; Head of Municipal Trading, Benjamin Pease; and Co-Head of Research, Adam Stern, JD.)

Market Review

In a virtual repeat of August, financial conditions continued to tighten in September with a sharp sell-off in equities and bonds inspired by hawkish Federal Reserve (Fed) activity, as inflation remains too high.

Treasury yields increased across the curve, with the 2-, 3-, 5-, and 7-year maturities all jumping by more than 70 basis points (bps) while the 10- and 30-year spots gained 68 and 52bps, respectively (See Figure 1).

The Fed raised the fed funds rate another 75bps at its September meeting. Several forecasts have the Fed hiking by 75bps at its upcoming November meeting and another 50bps in December. The Federal Open Market Committee is not scheduled to meet in October. Fed officials signaled the intention of continuing to hike until the funds level hits an end point, of 4.6 percent in 2023.

The ICE/Bank of America Merrill Lynch MOVE Index,[1] a measure of bond market volatility, continued to increase in September, illustrating the uncertainty and concern that characterized investor sentiment (See Figure 2).

The Chicago Board of Exchange VIX Index, a measure of equity market volatility, also approached year-to-date (YTD) highs, illustrating that all markets continued to adjust to a world where Quantitative Easing is being replaced by Quantitative Tightening (QT). We recognize that as the Fed advances on its rate-rising path, the risk of a policy error is becoming more likely. We are cautious on risk assets and expect wider credit spreads.

Economic data continued to show conflicting signs that the Fed’s interest rate increases were reducing inflation or slowing economic growth meaningfully. For example, Bloomberg (BBG) reported that Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data showed real consumption spending rose at a lower 0.1 percent month-over-month (M/M) in August, and July data was revised downward. Meanwhile, personal consumption expenditures, the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, stayed high, suggesting sustained price pressures. In addition, the labor market remains tight with upward pressure on wages.

Housing starts rose, per U.S. Census Bureau data, while home building permits fell in August. The housing starts data was stronger than expectations, BBG reported, while lower single- and multifamily permit issuance, may indicate that higher mortgage rates are weighing on housing demand.

The Atlanta Fed Bank’s GDPNow estimate at September 30 was 2.4 percent on an annualized basis.

During September, the BBG U.S. Treasury Bond Index declined 3.45 percent. The BBG U.S. Aggregate Bond Index dropped 4.32 percent. The equity benchmark S&P 500 Index fell 9.34 percent.

Municipal Market Review

Municipal yields increased across the curve during the month (See Figure 3). Yields rose 81bps in 2-years, 80bps in 5-years, while the 10- and 30-year spots closed the month 71 and 61bps higher.

Similar to Treasuries, municipal curves flattened over the month with the 2s/10s and 2s/30s closing 10bps and 20bps flatter.

Municipal/Treasury (M/T) ratios improved across the curve; particularly in the 2- to 5-year range. (See Figure 4).

The Bond Buyer reported that municipal bond issuance in September was down 38 percent month-over-month and 43 percent year-over-year, “as issuers eschewed the market amid another Federal Reserve rate hike and severe global market volatility.” Taxable municipal bond issuance was down 84 percent from a year ago, while tax-exempt issuance was down 29 percent from 2021.

Complicating supply conditions were continued elevated outflows from mutual funds which exceeded $8 billion in September, per Lipper/Refinitiv, to reach a record level exceeding $90 billion year-to-date.

The BBG Managed Money Short/Intermediate (1-10) Index declined 3.05 percent and the BBG 1-10 Year Blend Index was down 2.63 percent. Shorter-maturity bonds outperformed longer-maturity issues. Higher-rated bonds tended to outperform lower-rated bonds, with bonds rated AA delivering the best performance.

Corporate Market Review

IG corporate bond spreads widened by 18bps, per BBG data, ending September at 159bps. The BBG U.S. Corporate Investment Grade (IG) Index fell 5.26 percent on a total return basis, with a negative excess return of 1.42 percent compared with duration-matched Treasuries.

As the Fed continues to raise the fed fund rate, corporate bond market conditions reflect the changing landscape. Yields on IG bonds in September reached their highest level in more than a decade. Corporate gross and net leverage decreased in recent years, while cash on balance sheets increased; both are favorable indicators of overall financial health. Meanwhile, moving in a range from about 150 to 160bps, spreads have yet to reach levels seen in past recessionary periods. They are more reflective of concerns over future earnings, so investors will watch third quarter earnings reports carefully for signs.

For the month of September, the best-performing sectors were Supranationals, Packaging, Diversified Manufacturing, Airlines, and Environmental. The worst-performing were transportation services, Sovereigns, Cable Satellite, Wirelines, and Railroads. Bonds rated AA+ bonds were the best performers across the investment grade quality spectrum, while bonds rated A were the worst.

Index-eligible IG bond issuance in August, per BBG, was $ $103.4 billion, about $31 billion lower than August. Net issuance, after redemptions, was $4 billion. According to Emerging Portfolio Fund Research, IG bond funds reported approximately $12 billion of outflows in the month of September.

Securitized Market Review

Continued rate volatility and the Fed no longer buying MBS for the first time since 2011 led to one of the worst months on record for the MBS sector. The BBG MBS Index experienced a negative 5 percent total return and an excess return of negative 1.9 percent. Lower coupons underperformed higher coupons and Government National Mortgage Association MBS underperformed conventional[2] MBS, as there was speculation that the Bank of Japan sold MBS to support the nation’s currency.

Agency Commercial MBS (ACMBS) outperformed other IG sectors given their defensive characteristics. Market volatility negatively impacted non-agency CMBS as spreads widened to close near YTD wides.

The ABS sector delivered another strong month of performance, generating 13bps of excess returns, as spreads tightened. Market conditions impacted supply with only $11 billion issued in September, leaving YTD volume down 7 percent relative to the comparable period last year. Auto ABS credit performance continues to normalize, with default rates and loss severities up, albeit still below pre-pandemic levels.

[1] The MOVE Index measures U.S. interest rate volatility by tracking the movement in U.S. Treasury yield volatility implied by current prices of one-month over-the-counter options on 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year Treasuries. Historically, the index rises as concerns grow that interest rates are moving higher.

[2] Conventional MBS are issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

DISCLAIMER

This material provides general and/or educational information and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer of Breckinridge services or products or as legal, tax or investment advice. The content is current as of the time of writing or as designated within the material. All information, including the opinions and views of Breckinridge, is subject to change without notice.

Any estimates, targets, and projections are based on Breckinridge research, analysis, and assumptions. No assurances can be made that any such estimate, target or projection will be accurate; actual results may differ substantially.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Breckinridge makes no assurances, warranties or representations that any strategies described herein will meet their investment objectives or incur any profits. Any index results shown are for illustrative purposes and do not represent the performance of any specific investment. Indices are unmanaged and investors cannot directly invest in them. They do not reflect any management, custody, transaction or other expenses, and generally assume reinvestment of dividends, income and capital gains. Performance of indices may be more or less volatile than any investment strategy.

Performance results for Breckinridge’s investment strategies include the reinvestment of interest and any other earnings, but do not reflect any brokerage or trading costs a client would have paid. Results may not reflect the impact that any material market or economic factors would have had on the accounts during the time period. Due to differences in client restrictions, objectives, cash flows, and other such factors, individual client account performance may differ substantially from the performance presented.

All investments involve risk, including loss of principal. Diversification cannot assure a profit or protect against loss. Fixed income investments have varying degrees of credit risk, interest rate risk, default risk, and prepayment and extension risk. In general, bond prices rise when interest rates fall and vice versa. This effect is usually more pronounced for longer-term securities. Income from municipal bonds can be declared taxable because of unfavorable changes in tax laws, adverse interpretations by the IRS or state tax authorities, or noncompliant conduct of a bond issuer.

Breckinridge believes that the assessment of ESG risks, including those associated with climate change, can improve overall risk analysis. When integrating ESG analysis with traditional financial analysis, Breckinridge’s investment team will consider ESG factors but may conclude that other attributes outweigh the ESG considerations when making investment decisions.

There is no guarantee that integrating ESG analysis will improve risk-adjusted returns, lower portfolio volatility over any specific time period, or outperform the broader market or other strategies that do not utilize ESG analysis when selecting investments. The consideration of ESG factors may limit investment opportunities available to a portfolio. In addition, ESG data often lacks standardization, consistency and transparency and for certain companies such data may not be available, complete or accurate.

Breckinridge’s ESG analysis is based on third party data and Breckinridge analysts’ internal analysis. Analysts will review a variety of sources such as corporate sustainability reports, data subscriptions, and research reports to obtain available metrics for internally developed ESG frameworks. Qualitative ESG information is obtained from corporate sustainability reports, engagement discussion with corporate management teams, among others. A high sustainability rating does not mean it will be included in a portfolio, nor does it mean that a bond will provide profits or avoid losses.

Net Zero alignment and classifications are defined by Breckinridge and are subjective in nature. Although our classification methodology is informed by the Net Zero Investment Framework Implementation Guide as outlined by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, it may not align with the methodology or definition used by other companies or advisors. Breckinridge is a member of the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials and uses the financed emissions methodology to track, monitor and allocate emissions. These differences should be considered when comparing Net Zero application and strategies.

Targets and goals for Net Zero can change over time and could differ from individual client portfolios. Breckinridge will continue to invest in companies with exposure to fossil fuels; however, we may adjust our exposure to these types of investments based on net zero alignment and classifications over time.

Any specific securities mentioned are for illustrative and example only. They do not necessarily represent actual investments in any client portfolio.

The effectiveness of any tax management strategy is largely dependent on each client’s entire tax and investment profile, including investments made outside of Breckinridge’s advisory services. As such, there is a risk that the strategy used to reduce the tax liability of the client is not the most effective for every client. Breckinridge is not a tax advisor and does not provide personal tax advice. Investors should consult with their tax professionals regarding tax strategies and associated consequences.

Federal and local tax laws can change at any time. These changes can impact tax consequences for investors, who should consult with a tax professional before making any decisions.

The content may contain information taken from unaffiliated third-party sources. Breckinridge believes such information is reliable but does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Any third-party websites included in the content has been provided for reference only. Please see the Terms & Conditions page for third party licensing disclaimers.