Connect with us

Bond Bull Market Coming? Take The Road Less Traveled 

Over the past decade, historically low bond yields have converted many bond investors into bond traders. Bond traders strategically buy and sell bonds…

Published

on

Over the past decade, historically low bond yields have converted many bond investors into bond traders. Bond traders strategically buy and sell bonds to generate price gains. A bond coupon, a primary reason many investors buy bonds, is nothing more than a bonus for traders.  

Trading bonds is ages old and was typically dominated by institutional investors. Recently, however, the historically low yield environment and the liquidity and ease of trading ETFs make bond trading more commonplace among retail investors.

With the ten-year U.S. Treasury note yield eclipsing 2%, some bond traders think we are approaching another peak in yields. We know 2% seems low, but bond yields have trended lower for the last 30 years. Within the trend, each local peak in yield was followed by lower peaks as shown below.

With poor demographics, weak productivity growth, and a slew of new pandemic-related debt on the books, we tend to agree that another lower peak is probable.

For those agreeing in a coming bond bull market, we present a road less traveled. Closed-end bond mutual funds (CEFs) have a unique structure that, at times, can produce larger price gains or losses than bonds and higher yields than traditional bond funds or ETFs. If we are correct that yields will decline soon, some fixed income CEFs can produce double-digit returns in a relatively short period.

CEFs versus Open-End Funds and ETFs

Closed-End Funds (CEFs) are mutual funds with a fixed number of shares. Because of the structure, they trade on exchanges between investors. This unique feature often causes CEFs to trade at a premium or discount to their net asset value (NAV).

More traditional open-end mutual funds are always bought and sold through the fund’s management company at the fund’s NAV. As such, the share count on open-end mutual funds fluctuates daily with investor interest, but the daily price is always equal to its NAV.

ETFs can fluctuate slightly from their NAV, but dealers can arbitrage the difference when it occurs. Through the ETF creation and destruction process, dealers are financially incentivized to make sure the price of the ETF is very close to its NAV. Some unique instances exist, especially in the case of illiquid underlying assets, that entails such may not always be true.

CEF Return Components

Changes in the premium or discount from the NAV are an important differentiator between CEFs and open-end funds and ETFs. Further, the changing premium or discount can often result in over or underperformance versus other alternatives.

Given its importance, let’s consider the three biggest factors determining the premium or discount of a CEF.

  1. Supply and Demand. Strong demand and low supply of the fund may result in a premium, while weak demand and excess supply will often result in a discount.
  2. Quality of the fund management team. Investors may be willing to pay a premium for access to a management team that is highly regarded. Conversely, a discount may apply for managers perceived to be below average.
  3. The liquidity of the CEF and its underlying fund holdings. Often CEFs with unique or illiquid assets will trade at a premium as investors cannot replicate the fund’s holdings. As such, the more liquid the CEF trades in the market, the less volatile its premium or discount.

The change in the premium or discount to NAV is just one factor determining the total return for CEFs. The table below highlights other factors influencing the total return for CEFs.

Total Return FactorComment
Price of underlying bondsAs yields decrease, prices increase, helping the total return. The opposite occurs when yields increase.
Dividend (coupon)/YieldMany CEFs pay dividends monthly, unlike bonds which are often semiannual.
Discount/Premium divergence from NAVA declining discount or rising premium versus the NAV result in positive price gains. Conversely, an increasing discount or declining premium reduces the price.
LeverageLeverage used by many CEFs can amplify price changes (gains and losses) and dividends.
Expense ratioThe fee that the fund manager extracts from the CEFs return.

Example of a CEF (NBB)

It is worth exploring a specific CEF to understand its unique structure better. We chose the Nuveen Taxable Municipal Income Fund (NBB). As its name suggests, NBB invests in investment-grade taxable municipal bonds.

As of February 21, 2022, NBB is trading at a 6.8% discount to its NAV. The most recent annualized yield is 6.09%. It employs 41% leverage on the portfolio, which boosts the yield. The leverage implies that each dollar of equity in the fund supports $1.41 of investments.

As shown below, courtesy of CEF Connect-Nuveen Funds, NBB traded at a 1-2% premium to its NAV for the better part of the last year. However, the recent spike in yields and inflation concerns are primarily responsible for the current shift from premium to discount.

The Math Behind CEF Returns

Let’s do some math to understand how changes in the discount or premium affect returns and importantly provide guidance if a bull market in bonds surfaces. If the current discount (6.8%) returns to a 1% premium, shareholders will earn about 7.8% in price gains. In addition, they would also receive monthly coupon payments and any NAV price changes over the period.

The fund has an effective duration of 7.60 years. Accordingly, if yields were to change by 1%, we expect the fund’s NAV to change by approximately 7.60%.

nbb premium discount closed end fund

If we assume yields fall by 1% and investor concerns about inflation and higher interest rates abate, and NBB trades back to a 1% premium, investors will pocket a double-digit return. Such would be at least double what a municipal bondholder of the same bonds would earn. We caution that math works both ways. The discount could fall further, especially if yields continue to climb.

In 2018, NBB returned -6.38% as the Fed raised rates and embarked on QT. During that year, the discount to its NAV fell from -4.8% to a low of -9.5%, accounting for a significant portion of its loss. In 2019 the bull market in bonds was back on, the Fed reversed course, and the fund returned nearly +20%.

The graph below shows the fund’s returns over various periods. Note the 1-year NAV is up .63%, yet the price is down by 3.69%. The difference is a function of the current discount to NAV. Returns data from Nuveen’s CEF Connect can also be broken down annually to see how various CEFs did during bull and bond bear markets.

nbb returns closed end funds

The Case for Lower Yields

We wrote the following paragraph in 2016. Now, six years later and we believe it is just as pertinent today:

“Having begun in 1981, the current bull market in bonds is well-seasoned and no doubt much closer to the end than the beginning.  At the same time, the velocity of money is still declining in the U.S., the U.S. dollar is strengthening versus other currencies, and global deflationary forces emanating from abroad remain influential.  The U.S. economy is more sensitive than ever to the level of interest rates, and economic stress resulting from higher yields can easily halt economic growth and push the economy into recession.

Higher interest rates are starting to depress economic activity, especially in interest rate-sensitive sectors such as housing. There is little doubt that as the benefits of fiscal stimulus continue to erode over the coming quarters and the Fed raises interest rates, halts QE, and eventually reduces their balance sheet (QT), the economy will slow, and inflationary impulses will subside.

Such a result would help put a lid on rising interest rates and kick off the next bull market in bonds. Likely the bond markets will price for such an event in advance. While timing markets is difficult and yields can certainly rise further, we believe that yields will peak within the next few months, and CEFs will offer similar opportunities as in the past.

Screening for CEFs

Every Friday, SimpleVisor subscribers receive a brief article with a summary of five stocks that best epitomize a particular investment screening idea. This week’s coming report (2/25/2022) presents fixed income CEFs that should perform well if interest rates and inflation are peaking. For access to this report and a host of investment tools, data, charting, and real-time access to our portfolios, try us out with a 30-day free trial of SimpleVisor.

Summary

There are always opportunities in markets. Sometimes they are obvious and well followed by the public. Other times they lurk in underfollowed markets. We believe we are approaching a period in which bond yields will fall. While a typical investment in bonds, bond funds, or ETFs will prove valuable in such an event, CEFs can do even better.

Steep discounts to NAV and leverage separate CEFs from other fixed-income alternatives. While more volatile and riskier, they can also be more rewarding.

The post Bond Bull Market Coming? Take The Road Less Traveled  appeared first on RIA.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate…

Published

on

Low Iron Levels In Blood Could Trigger Long COVID: Study

Authored by Amie Dahnke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People with inadequate iron levels in their blood due to a COVID-19 infection could be at greater risk of long COVID.

(Shutterstock)

A new study indicates that problems with iron levels in the bloodstream likely trigger chronic inflammation and other conditions associated with the post-COVID phenomenon. The findings, published on March 1 in Nature Immunology, could offer new ways to treat or prevent the condition.

Long COVID Patients Have Low Iron Levels

Researchers at the University of Cambridge pinpointed low iron as a potential link to long-COVID symptoms thanks to a study they initiated shortly after the start of the pandemic. They recruited people who tested positive for the virus to provide blood samples for analysis over a year, which allowed the researchers to look for post-infection changes in the blood. The researchers looked at 214 samples and found that 45 percent of patients reported symptoms of long COVID that lasted between three and 10 months.

In analyzing the blood samples, the research team noticed that people experiencing long COVID had low iron levels, contributing to anemia and low red blood cell production, just two weeks after they were diagnosed with COVID-19. This was true for patients regardless of age, sex, or the initial severity of their infection.

According to one of the study co-authors, the removal of iron from the bloodstream is a natural process and defense mechanism of the body.

But it can jeopardize a person’s recovery.

When the body has an infection, it responds by removing iron from the bloodstream. This protects us from potentially lethal bacteria that capture the iron in the bloodstream and grow rapidly. It’s an evolutionary response that redistributes iron in the body, and the blood plasma becomes an iron desert,” University of Oxford professor Hal Drakesmith said in a press release. “However, if this goes on for a long time, there is less iron for red blood cells, so oxygen is transported less efficiently affecting metabolism and energy production, and for white blood cells, which need iron to work properly. The protective mechanism ends up becoming a problem.”

The research team believes that consistently low iron levels could explain why individuals with long COVID continue to experience fatigue and difficulty exercising. As such, the researchers suggested iron supplementation to help regulate and prevent the often debilitating symptoms associated with long COVID.

It isn’t necessarily the case that individuals don’t have enough iron in their body, it’s just that it’s trapped in the wrong place,” Aimee Hanson, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge who worked on the study, said in the press release. “What we need is a way to remobilize the iron and pull it back into the bloodstream, where it becomes more useful to the red blood cells.”

The research team pointed out that iron supplementation isn’t always straightforward. Achieving the right level of iron varies from person to person. Too much iron can cause stomach issues, ranging from constipation, nausea, and abdominal pain to gastritis and gastric lesions.

1 in 5 Still Affected by Long COVID

COVID-19 has affected nearly 40 percent of Americans, with one in five of those still suffering from symptoms of long COVID, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Long COVID is marked by health issues that continue at least four weeks after an individual was initially diagnosed with COVID-19. Symptoms can last for days, weeks, months, or years and may include fatigue, cough or chest pain, headache, brain fog, depression or anxiety, digestive issues, and joint or muscle pain.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 12:50

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Another beloved brewery files Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The beer industry has been devastated by covid, changing tastes, and maybe fallout from the Bud Light scandal.

Published

on

Before the covid pandemic, craft beer was having a moment. Most cities had multiple breweries and taprooms with some having so many that people put together the brewery version of a pub crawl.

It was a period where beer snobbery ruled the day and it was not uncommon to hear bar patrons discuss the makeup of the beer the beer they were drinking. This boom period always seemed destined for failure, or at least a retraction as many markets seemed to have more craft breweries than they could support.

Related: Fast-food chain closes more stores after Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The pandemic, however, hastened that downfall. Many of these local and regional craft breweries counted on in-person sales to drive their business. 

And while many had local and regional distribution, selling through a third party comes with much lower margins. Direct sales drove their business and the pandemic forced many breweries to shut down their taprooms during the period where social distancing rules were in effect.

During those months the breweries still had rent and employees to pay while little money was coming in. That led to a number of popular beermakers including San Francisco's nationally-known Anchor Brewing as well as many regional favorites including Chicago’s Metropolitan Brewing, New Jersey’s Flying Fish, Denver’s Joyride Brewing, Tampa’s Zydeco Brew Werks, and Cleveland’s Terrestrial Brewing filing bankruptcy.

Some of these brands hope to survive, but others, including Anchor Brewing, fell into Chapter 7 liquidation. Now, another domino has fallen as a popular regional brewery has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Overall beer sales have fallen.

Image source: Shutterstock

Covid is not the only reason for brewery bankruptcies

While covid deserves some of the blame for brewery failures, it's not the only reason why so many have filed for bankruptcy protection. Overall beer sales have fallen driven by younger people embracing non-alcoholic cocktails, and the rise in popularity of non-beer alcoholic offerings,

Beer sales have fallen to their lowest levels since 1999 and some industry analysts

"Sales declined by more than 5% in the first nine months of the year, dragged down not only by the backlash and boycotts against Anheuser-Busch-owned Bud Light but the changing habits of younger drinkers," according to data from Beer Marketer’s Insights published by the New York Post.

Bud Light parent Anheuser Busch InBev (BUD) faced massive boycotts after it partnered with transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney. It was a very small partnership but it led to a right-wing backlash spurred on by Kid Rock, who posted a video on social media where he chastised the company before shooting up cases of Bud Light with an automatic weapon.

Another brewery files Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Gizmo Brew Works, which does business under the name Roth Brewing Company LLC, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on March 8. In its filing, the company checked the box that indicates that its debts are less than $7.5 million and it chooses to proceed under Subchapter V of Chapter 11. 

"Both small business and subchapter V cases are treated differently than a traditional chapter 11 case primarily due to accelerated deadlines and the speed with which the plan is confirmed," USCourts.gov explained. 

Roth Brewing/Gizmo Brew Works shared that it has 50-99 creditors and assets $100,000 and $500,000. The filing noted that the company does expect to have funds available for unsecured creditors. 

The popular brewery operates three taprooms and sells its beer to go at those locations.

"Join us at Gizmo Brew Works Craft Brewery and Taprooms located in Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Find us for entertainment, live music, food trucks, beer specials, and most importantly, great-tasting craft beer by Gizmo Brew Works," the company shared on its website.

The company estimates that it has between $1 and $10 million in liabilities (a broad range as the bankruptcy form does not provide a space to be more specific).

Gizmo Brew Works/Roth Brewing did not share a reorganization or funding plan in its bankruptcy filing. An email request for comment sent through the company's contact page was not immediately returned.

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending